Return to Transcripts main page
Amanpour
Interview with Oxford University Global History Professor and "The Silk Roads" Author Peter Frankopan; Interview with Artist Linder; Interview with Co-Founder Colossal Biosciences George Church. Aired 1-2p ET
Aired April 11, 2025 - 13:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
[13:00:00]
CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
PETER FRANKOPAN, GLOBAL HISTORY PROFESSOR, OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND AUTHOR, "THE SILK ROADS": The question is, what was -- what's Trump trying to fix?
Because things didn't look broken.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Trump has backed down a bit. But the trade war is still on. I ask historian Peter Frankopan if there's a precedent for this terrifying
turbulence.
Then --
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
LINDER, ARTIST: 16-year-olds and 60-year-olds come here and they each find something to take away.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: -- danger came smiling. Artist Linder reflects on 50 years of trailblazing work.
Also, ahead, the resurrection of the dire wolf. Walter Isaacson speaks to George Church, co-founder of the biotech company behind that scientific
breakthrough.
Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London.
It's as if the whole world has been in a rolling earthquake ever since President Trump started slapping massive tariffs that upended the global
trade system this week, and then suddenly hit pause. As American equities and usually safe bond markets tanked in the stock market's worst start to a
presidential term in recorded history.
Amid dire warnings of a recession, the incoming German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, has suggested the reversal is a result of Europe's
determination to stand its ground.
FRIEDRICH MERZ, CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION LEADER (through translator): From my point of view, it's a reaction to the Europeans resolve, and that's
what Ursula von der Leyen has said several times in the last few days. She also said personally, we are determined to fight back, and you can see from
this example that unity helps. It's best if we all do zero percent tariffs in transatlantic trade, and then the problem is solved.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: But Trump has doubled down again on China, hitting it even harder. And Beijing is fighting back. Has the world seen anything like this
before? Here to discuss the damage and what's to come, Peter Frankopan, professor of global history at Oxford University and co-host of the
"Legacy" podcast. Welcome back to the program.
So, the first question, have we seen this kind of, and in this case, self- inflicted economic damage in history, in relevant history?
PETER FRANKOPAN, GLOBAL HISTORY PROFESSOR, OXFORD UNIVERSITY AND AUTHOR, "THE SILK ROADS": Sure. I mean, that's what happens when you have
revolutions. In 1917 in Russia, the whole world came tumbling down. You had a single figure, Lenin, surrounded by people who had a vision of what they
thought the world should look like and the economic chaos that's unleashed sudden chain of whole series sequence of events that destabilize the whole
world as well as Russia.
So, I think we are living through a form of revolution. And it's not just about the markets this week. Since Trump got into power, you know, he's
sacked the chair of the joint chief of staff. He's threatened to invade Canada. He's threatened to invade Greenland. You know, the kind of
volatility that we're seeing, it's not just about markets.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, that's interesting because, honestly, that feels so yesterday. But what you're referring to is this incredible radical
reshaping of the whole U.S.-led world order abroad and at home. So, you think -- then why do you think Trump has hit the pause button? You've been
writing up a storm about the impact of this trade war.
FRANKOPAN: Well, I guess it's three factors. One is that when U.S. government bonds start to become expensive, the whole basis of the U.S.
economy looks like it's starting to teeter. Second, he's got around him a whole bunch of very experienced, very successful, particularly in the tech
sector whose share prices went through the floor. So, companies like Apple lost nearly trillion worth of dollars in the space of a few days.
And third, that the noise around what Trump has been doing, with all of its former -- all the United States former allies has started to create
opportunities for other people to step into. And one of the things that I hear a lot when I'm anywhere in Asia is about Asia being stable, right? And
that's a real difference to the world that I grew up in, where the United States was not just the lead of a free world, but was providing an envelope
and a protective cushion to enforce global rules-based orders. That's really changed.
[13:05:00]
AMANPOUR: OK. So, you've just come back from Hong Kong and you obviously picked up a huge amount there. So, Trump and his cabinet, people are
saying, that they're going to be talking to President Xi, who has refused to back down, says they will, you know, I think that stand up and fight
this, they're not going to surrender. And they have kept their, you know, excessive tariffs, you know, their retaliatory tariffs on.
It appears now that Trump is thinking, having dissed his European and other allies and slapped them with tariffs, is now trying to come out of this by
saying, perhaps we can all ban together, all of us allies, against China. Is that a viable strategy?
FRANKOPAN: Well, you know, one of the best things we produce in this country is "Blackadder," where Baldrick is the man who went, had a cunning
plan. If that's what --
AMANPOUR: Well, that's a comedy series.
FRANKOPAN: It's a comedy series, right? And Baldrick is the man servant who can never quite understand what's going on, but always has a cunning
plan, that is sort of -- for some of the parts. If that was what Trump wanted to do, then he maybe should have gathered up all of his allies first
to try to work out what would be the best way to address, you know, what are some serious imbalances and some serious issues. And I don't think that
those imbalances or serious issues are not understood by the Chinese side, but it's how best to do it.
The problem is when you look like you're volatile, when you keep moving and changing your opinion about things, then it's very difficult to build for
the future. And that's, of course, hard for a business, but that's really difficult if you are an ally and a friend too. And you know, what we've
seen in Europe with pressure on NATO, of people like J. D. Vance calling Europeans pathetic, and then the sort of laying down in front of --
AMANPOUR: Calling Chinese peasants.
FRANKOPAN: Calling Chinese peasants. And they're laying down, apparently, or seemingly in front of Russia in Ukraine. Then I think it's not
surprising that people are questioning what does that world order start to look like. So, maybe Trump has got a brilliant plan about China. It's hard
to see how you would do it this way, but you know, you live and learn.
And I think one of the, one of the challenges is that everything moves so quickly at the moment. It's hard to guess what comes next.
AMANPOUR: Do we have the luxury -- can we afford ourselves the luxury of living and learning? Because economists are now saying that even with a
pause button and maybe a reorganization of this economic war, that the -- what's already happened is going to cause and has caused lasting damage.
It's going to be really difficult to rewind that clock, because the 10 percent across the board tariffs remain, and it could still likely lead to
a recession? And in fact, as we speak, the markets having zoomed up after the pause started to go down again when reality set in again.
FRANKOPAN: You know, look, I think memories can be short. I think it's about substance rather than the noise. I think that's a hard -- that's a
first one. I mean, I think Trump tried to talk about reshoring and making America great again and bringing manufacturing jobs back. You know, if he
wants a model of a state that has done that well, that's industrialized and protected itself with high walls and tariffs, then he probably should study
a bit of Chinese history in the 20th century.
So, I mean, there's a kind of obvious parallel of what Trump is trying to do to have maximum independence, to have input in other people's supply
chains and to be able to use leverage, and that's something that China does quite well. So, the world is -- we're in a hall of mirrors at the moment
where all of the models should be the leader of the free world talking about free markets. In fact, the people are talking about the importance of
reducing tariffs, trading freely is the government in Beijing. And you know, everything seems to be the wrong way around.
So, here in places like Europe, we've got to try to work out how do we balance between it. We've seen this week Ursula von der Leyen and having
emergency meetings with the Chinese premier.
AMANPOUR: She being the president of the E.U. commission.
FRANKOPAN: Right. We're talking with the Chinese premier to talk about ways to protect Europe, having excess capacity that our dumped on us here
as a result of barriers going up. So, those -- that instability that Trump has brought into the picture doesn't necessarily mean there's going to make
it easier to do a deal.
And, you know, for what it's worth, when Trump was president first time round, China's biggest problem with Trump wasn't about tariffs or trade
agreements, it was that he kept changing his mind.
AMANPOUR: Well, that seems to be the case right now. But also, I want to ask you, because you are historian and Trump seems to be going back a lot
to -- you know, beyond a hundred years ago. So, I want to play this little bit of a soundbite. He loves tariffs. He's -- let -- he's been talking
about tariffs forever, even in the face of, you know, The Wall Street Journal interviews and stuff like that. And they point out how, you know,
negative it is for the world economy. No, I love it. Best word in the English dictionary. And this is his reason.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
DONALD TRUMP, U.S. PRESIDENT: Our country was the strongest, believe it or not, from 1870 to 1913. You know why? It was all tariff based. We had no
income tax. Then in 1913, some genius came up with the idea of let's charge the people of our country, not foreign countries that are ripping off our
country. And the country was never relatively -- was never that kind of wealth.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: So, he meandered in the last bit, the old weave was about to set in. But two points there. One, that the world has been ripping us off since
then. And two, we were never stronger than in -- than before 1913 when it was all tariffs.
[13:10:00]
FRANKOPAN: Yes. There are two different things. I mean, I can't -- I'm scratching my head who it is that Trump has -- what he's been reading. I
mean, at that time he's talking about, you know, Belgium had an empire that can controlled most of what's now Congo, you know, or the Britain
controlled the quarter of the globe. So, the idea that the United States was at its strongest, you know, that was at a time when Europeans all had
empires and controlled all trade flows.
In fact, when Europe went to war in 1914, that's what made America great because suddenly Europe bought materials, particularly wheat and steel, but
across the Atlantic, that pumped huge amounts of cash and that changed the world order in the 20th century. So, I'm not quite sure where he's got that
from.
The thing about foreigners is an interesting one. I mean, when he talked about interruption of tariffs, he's talked about raping, looting,
pillaging. And that is what European empires did. That's what all empires have done. But it's hard to see what Trump is trying to do that's different
where he's trying to charge blood money in Ukraine or trying to charge for the benefits of trading.
So, one can understand if you're being specific about, let's say, critical minerals or rare earths or things that have specific significance for the
U.S. But probably, it's an American consumer's best interest to have sneakers that are reasonably and cheaply priced rather than made in the
U.S.
So, the blanket is the problem. Trying to treat everything the same way shows either there's not an enormous amount of sophistication to the view
or it is to set things up for more detailed discussions. But as we learn here in Britain, trade discussions take a long time to conduct.
AMANPOUR: Well, remember, in fact, you know, Boris Johnson thought he would get a post-Brexit trade deal --
FRANKOPAN: Up and ready.
AMANPOUR: -- from Trump, and Britain still doesn't have a trade deal. Trump won then Biden, and now Trump 2, it's not even promised.
FRANKOPAN: So, you know, it might be that comes. But that will involve hours, weeks, months of lawyers sitting in rooms together, arguing the fine
details about, you know, which types of beef might be able to be sold by from American farms to Europe.
But the question is what was what -- what's Trump trying to fix? Because things didn't look broken in grand part. You know, the United States has a
hugely important economy. All the soft power. You travel to any city around the world, people are listening to Taylor Swift and they're not listening
to Chinese pop stars. You know, I think that that idea about the U.S. giving up a leadership role, it's quite unclear about why Trump has decided
to do this.
AMANPOUR: OK. So, this is really interesting and I wonder if the American people, particularly those who voted for him, get this or whether they
care. So, it's not like America won't still be maybe the strongest economy in the world, but that it's relative power will diminish, right? People are
saying it'll be, you know, a bit poorer, a bit more isolated, a bit more alone, and like over there on its own, while others are waiting to jump
into the vacuum. Others being China and whoever else can be -- well, mostly China, right?
Do you see -- Because people are now writing that, yes, maybe there is going to be a post-American world, post the American-led world order, and
it'll be better.
FRANKOPAN: Well, yes, I'm not sure about better, but that's certainly the world as it looks in reality. I mean, you know, for what it's worth,
although the U.S. is a hugely important part of China's export economy, China exports more to countries in Southeast Asia than it does to the U.S.,
right? So, there are all sorts of balances that other states are thinking about how to tie up their connections.
I mean, in the last couple of weeks, we've seen combined naval operations by Russian, Iranian, and Chinese ships in the Indian Ocean, and discussions
around satellite technologies, around data and around how to find ways to cooperate higher, even at nuclear level. And that means that people are not
natural bedfellows. Putin's Russia is very different to Xi Jinping's China. Very different to Khomeini's Iran. You find lots of people being pushed
into room together to think how do we find better ways to cooperate?
I mean, for example, at the moment, the greatest -- the biggest supplier of oil to Europe is India, because India is importing so much oil from Russia.
So, that world order is being forged anyway. So, the U.S. can try to derail it, which is, I guess what Trump is trying to do. If you want to build an
alliance of people you can talk through to find ways of collaborating and recalibrating that, then maybe you want to try and earn people's respect
and trust rather than look like you're an arsonist setting fire to the economy and to Greenland and to your neighbors and so on.
AMANPOUR: You know, it's interesting because this week has solidified for people who don't like Trump anyway and don't like his policies, that he's
not playing 3D chess, that he's not a great negotiator, that this is what they think, that it is chaos, that there is a slash and burn view about
changing the world order without having put a plan B in place to build up and replace what they're burning. And so, he's had to put the brakes on
this very radical economic moves that he's been making.
I mean, do you think that's true? I just want to play what his spokeswoman has been saying about, essentially his genius.
[13:15:00]
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
KAROLINE LEAVITT, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: America does not need other countries as much as other countries need us, and President Trump knows
this. He's going to use the leverage of our markets and our country to the advantage of the people he was sworn in to represent. On the other hand,
countries like China who have chosen to retaliate and try to double down on their mistreatment of American workers are making a mistake. President
Trump has a spine of steel and he will not break and America will not break under his leadership.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: If I'm not mistaken, that comment about the spine of steel was just before he hit the pause button in response to the mass panic that was
going on in the world.
FRANKOPAN: Well, we have the U.S. trade representative testifying in front of Congress, justifying tariffs for two hours when the text dropped that
Trump had canceled tariffs and put them on pause rather. So, you know that engagement about trying to present Trump as trying to represent the workers
in America, everybody thinks that's a good idea. We understand that there's a purpose of trying to recalibrate global trade supplies.
AMANPOUR: Is it possible?
FRANKOPAN: Well, look, there are 4 billion people in Asia. So, if you are Apple, your calculation is, do you think about the 75 percent of people who
buy iPhones who are not based in the United States? If you are Elon Musk, you think about the people who are buying Teslas who are not in the U.S. or
do you put the U.S. first? And those kinds of questions are commercial ones.
But Trump is introducing politics into business now, that where -- you know, he's -- you know, at his inauguration, having all the big tech guys
standing in the front row in front of his cabinet was a message that business interests are going to speak first.
So, I think that what happens now is that some of that has been the cold reality of what Trump's policies have done, have recalibrated his own
vision for the time being anyway.
AMANPOUR: But even people like Bill Ackman, who's talked up a storm about the possibilities under Trump is now saying, oh, my God, you know, I'm
paraphrasing, but his latest on Monday, Tuesday was, how could I have not seen this coming? And a lot of business feels that they were overeager and
they got it wrong, and they're being, you know, hit hard by reality sometimes.
FRANKOPAN: Sometimes it's good to be a historian and you can look backwards in time rather than to be managing other people's money and to
tell them why you got things wrong. But, you know, if you bet that you think you can read Trump's character, that's probably a pretty solitary
lesson in there. And I think if I was running a big U.S. business in any sector, pharmaceuticals that Trump earlier this week said he was going to
sanction to tech companies, it's, do you take the risk of investing billions, even tens of billions, bringing factories back to the U.S. where
he might change his mind again, or do a deal with China or with others that then eats away your margins too. So, it's very hard when the winds keep
changing the direction they're blowing.
AMANPOUR: There is -- I mean, we've talked about historical precedence. I mean, I'm sure the U.S. doesn't want to be lumped in with Lenin, who was
the last one who created this kind of self-coup, as I heard from a Chinese colleague, against their own government and their own system.
But I was recently speaking to the former president of Colombia who told me that, you know, for many decades Latin America tried this very same thing.
It was called something different. And this is what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JUAN MANUEL SANTOS, FORMER COLOMBIAN PRESIDENT: Latin America, for 30 years, did what exactly Trump announced yesterday. That's why back in the
early '90s we were -- all of Latin America was very engaged in negotiating the creation of the World Trade Organization because the import
substitution policy was a failure.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: Import substitution policy was their version of tariffs, right? I mean, it's protectionism.
FRANKOPAN: So, look, Latin America in the year 2000 had a trade with China of about $12 billion. Last year, it passed $500 billion, right? Most of us
in the world think that trade is a good thing. Trade is a good thing for women and women's rights because it allows high levels of disposable
income. It allows you to feed your family better. If you start putting barriers in the way, then things become harder.
So, clearly, there are ways in which you need to protect your national security operators. That's complicated in the world of new materials, new
technologies, but things like where you get your fruit from, where you get your pencils from, you've got to balance how you protect your farmers, how
you get your manufacturing right. And if there are problems, then it's about sitting around the table and trying to address those openly as
possible.
But to be able to have any form of negotiation, you need to trust the other side. So, that I think is a real challenge about how Trump does business,
the use of threats, and then scrolling back, you know, you teach other people how you negotiate.
And just this week, by announcing tariffs and then pulling back, it shows that -- it shows you how Trump thinks. And that's quite a useful thing if
you're sitting all opposite him at the negotiating table.
AMANPOUR: So, historically, and we've got only a minute left, where is this leading? Great Depression was just after, you know, the much vaunted,
you know, 1913 tariffs and this and that.
FRANKOPAN: My guess would be, you got one or two things, is either this builds up to a world of hot war of people using their leverage to try to
get competitive advantage in using force, which we all hope we avoid, because the -- what's at stake is absolutely catastrophic, or that a deal
gets done. And those deals, I think, are not beyond the wit of man, but they do take time. But it's hard to be dragged the table to do something
you don't want to do in China as well as other parts of the world.
[13:20:00]
The message is about stability, cooperation, the door is open, we're here to talk, and that's even what China's been saying to Trump now. The
question is whether Trump has a price that he's actually willing to agree at.
AMANPOUR: Peter Frankopan, thank you. Such amazing, amazing perspective, and a lot for us to keep thinking about.
Later in the program, Artist Linder shows me around her exhibition only 50 years in the making.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Now, we turn to an artist who's been challenging convention for 50 years. She goes simply as Linder and is best known for using photo
montage. Remixing images from popular culture to tackle themes from feminism to consumerism. Danger Came Smiling is a new exhibition showcasing
decades of her groundbreaking work, including with her post-punk group, Ludus.
And this week, I asked her about being ahead of her times when I met her at the Hayward Gallery here in London.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: Linder, welcome.
LINDER, ARTIST: Thank you.
AMANPOUR: You're 70-ish. And this is your first, first retrospective here in the U.K. You've had them in Europe, in Paris, et cetera. What does it
mean for you to be at this point right now?
LINDER: As the world around us becomes more and more unsettled, perhaps if this show had happened five years ago, it would've been a very different
reading. So, I do believe in fate and I do believe that things come to you when the time and the conditions are right.
AMANPOUR: What do you imagine their reaction might have been five years ago?
LINDER: I think five years ago we didn't have, for example, deep faking wasn't happening. We didn't have social media was powerful, but it's really
ramped up and accelerated the last five years. So, there's a new very intense awareness of the body, especially for women.
So, I think five years ago it would've been, again, a good show to see. But there's something about right now, right now, and I know that 16-year-olds
and 60-year-olds come here and they each find something to take away.
AMANPOUR: So, behind me is a very colorful, sort of out there portrait. It's you and a friend. And you are covered in some kind of colorful goo.
What is that about and how does it fit into what you've just talked about?
LINDER: See for me and friend covered in custard, rice pudding, yogurt food colorings. At the time, 10 years ago or so, there was a fetish,
suddenly a craze for something called Splosh. It's a very, I would think, English sensibility about going into the kitchen and covering yourself with
the contents of a fridge or a cupboard.
So, there were lots of magazines around with women predominantly covered head to toe with big beams or covered head to toe in custard. And I was
looking at those images and thinking, this is rather like Jackson Pollock or somebody sort of from the expressionist doing something live upon the
body. So, I was fascinated.
At the same time, my dear, dear father, had not long passed away. And towards the last few days of his life, I was having to spoon-feed him
because he couldn't swallow. He'd had a stroke. And I had to be very, very careful not to drop one little tiny drop of custody. I wanted to keep his
dignity.
[13:25:00]
AMANPOUR: It's an extraordinary story actually, because you are the art as well.
LINDER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: Not just the artist, but you are the art. And I want -- I just want to fast backwards. You were the first to be so daring as to cover your
body in slabs of meat. I mean, before -- way before Lady Gaga in 2002, you did it in the '70s, right?
LINDER: Yes. Well, when it happened, it was the site of that performance with the Hacienda Club in Manchester. And there've been a lot of talk and
lot of excitement about the club opening, about its design, unique design.
But I, as an onlooker, I was thinking, well, you know, you're still selling the cheap meat products, like beef -- you know, cheap burgers, et cetera.
Midweek at the Hacienda, often they just kind of loop pornography in a very kind of lazy boy way, which really irritated me. So, all of this was, you
know, going on in my head.
And I was singing with my band, Ludus. And so, yes, I had this meat bods (ph), which is very smelly, but it was just a way -- it was, again, using,
your clothes in your body to get a fairly potent message across.
AMANPOUR: What was the reaction?
LINDER: Shock. I think at first because of the color of the lights on stage, people said it looked like I was wearing flowers, some sort of
peculiar flowers. Then when the sort of big spotlights went on, everybody was aghast and just moved back like a few feet. So, there was -- for me
that really early sense of shock, oh, you can use shock in a really potent way.
AMANPOUR: You know, I was here for the -- for one of the previews. And I heard you talk and you were in the punk scene and all of that, and you
said, we didn't want to be known as artists, we want to be cultural warriors.
LINDER: Yes. It's very true at the time, I think perhaps because British art itself for we young working class, we wouldn't even think of ourselves
as creatives there, and we didn't really have a vocabulary adequate to describe what it was that we aspired to be because as working-class
children we didn't know what the future could hold.
Both of my parents left school at age 14. So, I was the first person in the family not to do that. And so, I was -- they -- there was a great -- a lot
of expectancy, but I just knew that art at that point, it felt like no, it was all to do with being a designer, designing Roxy music sleeves, for
example, would be one of the aspirations. So, it felt very much like I definitely did not want to be an artist.
AMANPOUR: Yes. And the idea of cultural warrior, because, of course, around that time as well, as you say, you were in music, you were singing.
You were partnered with -- I mean, personal partner with I think the lead of Buzzcocks.
LINDER: Yes.
AMANPOUR: That Buzzcocks, that band. And you created the album cover, which is the illustration for this exhibition. I just love it because it's
the female body which you've decorated, but as you say, with a domestic appliance in front of her face. So, in this case, an iron. Talk to me about
how you've done that. You've used the culture around women. As part of your art.
LINDER: I suppose it's almost -- you could say almost homeopathic. In homeopathy you use like to kill like. So, in a way, I suppose even in those
early years, looking at magazines around me, looking at men's magazines and women's magazines and the expectations in both.
So, I just really simply found this warm, naked woman and her body actually is quite avant-garde. It wasn't a body typical of that time. It feels very
now, because the body is very lean. It's very -- it's oiled. The body was not typical of 1976. So, that was interesting.
Viscerally, I got such a thrill, when I glued that together. And the original is quite tiny. We see it here. And it's quite tiny, almost like a
little icon as the decades go by. And it was only when it went out into popular culture via the sleeve, via posters that this extraordinary
feedback was coming.
AMANPOUR: Was it positive feedback or was it negative?
LINDER: Positive. In the main, positive feedback.
AMANPOUR: People didn't worry that you were trashing trad wives, so to speak, because we might call them now?
LINDER: No, I think people were intrigued. I think there was something about -- it was such a simple act. You know, gluing on three motifs onto,
you know, a page farm. It wasn't Playboy, but from whatever. I think it was so -- very elegant.
AMANPOUR: And that actually brings me to the way you've described it. You know, it's a Playboy model in the magazine. And then you did the applique,
I'm going to say.
LINDER: Applique, applique.
AMANPOUR: But is it that? because, you know, people have said, is this collage, is this -- but it's photo montage.
LINDER: I'm quite strict about calling it photo montage.
AMANPOUR: Yes.
[13:30:00]
LINDER: Because collage can be -- you know, you can stick anything together for collage. It's quite a wide remit. But photo montage is very,
very purist. It really is just cutting up and gluing together photographs. And that history, we can trace right back to the early 20th century when
dada and surrealism was happening.
And now, I'm particularly interested that this medium, photo montage, it coincides with soldiers coming back from World War I, whose bodies are cut
up in ways that we have never witnessed before. So, you have artists in Zurich, et cetera, who go on to form dada, but they're watching these cut
up bodies coming back, the mechanization of war.
And so, photo montage comes out of that, where you can find photographs of bodies and you can cut them up rather like a surgeon will cut of a body.
AMANPOUR: Tell me how you do it, because you've just talked about surgical precision. And you use a scalpel. Is there a reason why you use a scalpel?
Is there anything else that could be just as sharp and just as effective?
LINDER: I sometimes use scissors, but there's something about using the scalpel that's so, so precise. And you have to have a very, very good skill
set to be able to use it. And now, I've had, you know, half a century of working with a scalpel. So, it's quite Pavlovian. The minute I have a
scalpel in my hand, that part of the psyche gets quite exciting and think, OK, now we're going to be doing our sort of operations upon books and
magazine from the last -- well, from the last hundred years.
So, the scalpel feels clean. Something I can say it makes a clean cut. And this seems to be very --
AMANPOUR: It's not violent?
LINDER: No. It feels reparative. No, it feels the opposite of violent. No, it feels almost like a surgeon doing heart surgery. So, that cut doesn't
feel violent. That cut feels very life enhancing. And it allows me to make images that go out into the world upon which each person can have their own
meaning. They're not fixed meanings, they're free floating.
AMANPOUR: Have you ever been surprised by some of the impressions people take from your work, the meanings they project on your work?
LINDER: I have been surprised, and with this show -- the Hayward delighted, because I heard some -- lots of 16, 17, 18-year-olds looking at
those early photo montages of women with various domestic utensils on their body. And this young generation now, they see those women as very powerful
cyborgs. So, they don't see them encumbered by the technology. They see these women as actually empowered by it. It's kind of like DIY domestic
cyborg figures. You know, beware if you're passing into this house because you are not too sure, you know, what's -- what you're about to encounter.
So, I think that generation, who's the generation I really want to, you know, appeal to.
AMANPOUR: This exhibition is called Danger Came Smiling. What do you mean by that? What does it mean to you?
LINDER: At the time, I made -- I recorded a track called "Danger Came Smiling" many years ago and I took the title from my grandmother used to
get true Confessions Magazine every week. And True Confessions was full of quite lured, romance sexy stories. And one of those stories was called
Danger Came Smiling, and it was just such a beautiful line. I didn't even quite know what it meant. It was quite a throwaway title, but I remember
even back then thinking this has many facets.
And when we were trying to decide the title of the show. Ralph Rugoff, the director here, he -- I was wearing a t-shirt of Danger Came Smiling, and he
said, that's the title of the show. And I think, really, Ralph? So, I had to think about it. But everybody here agreed that it had a sort of not
knowingness about it. You can't really pin down the meaning to Danger Came Smiley, but we can sense it.
AMANPOUR: And what is the danger?
LINDER: Oh, the danger. In this age of deep fakes, you could say that we are all very, very vulnerable from the theft of our own ID. I think there's
a lot of danger now that's happening digitally rather than the physical world. And that's a danger that's hard to protect oneself about -- that's a
danger. It's very difficult to protect oneself from, because one's image is spinning out into hyperspace. So, I think there's all sorts of dangers now
that weren't around 20 years ago.
AMANPOUR: And we've seen the film, "The Substance," it takes, the woman's obsession or society's obsession of what women should look like to a degree
that, I mean, we've never seen on film. It's never going to end is it, this obsession, this forceful, you know, wave against women and how they should
look?
LINDER: I don't think it is. And I think I look back to my younger, optimistic self and I look at -- and like I say, 16-year-olds, 25-year-olds
now, and you have the optimism that things will change and I don't want to be there for, you know, the 70-year-olds worrying everybody.
[13:35:00]
But it maybe if now, if it's at its peak, then it will implode. Maybe -- I don't know what that implosion would look like, but the pressure upon --
particularly on women and young women to always be seen, to be performing an absolute kind of maximum, always looking exquisite.
AMANPOUR: Linder, what is this? It looks like a cut up carpet. What's the meaning behind it?
LINDER: The carpet was woven at Dovecot Tapestry Studios in Edinburgh. There are only two tapestry studios left in Britain. So, I feel it's really
important that we really bring them out literally into the spotlight here.
So, I was designing a rug for them. And I was really intrigued about a rug that could lie very flat on the floor but also a rug that could participate
in a ballet. I was working with Northern Ballet at the time. So, I worked very closely with the weavers at Dovecot Studio who created this
extraordinary rug. And it was beautiful. And it had this gold lame backdrop, which was really referencing Elvis's $10,000 lame suit, it's one
of his kind of, you know, PR tropes.
And then, I asked the wonderful weavers who'd woven it, could they possibly cut it up into a spiral. And they said, yes, we can.
AMANPOUR: So, they did it? This is not your scalpel work?
LINDER: No, I didn't dare. When it came to this. So, they carefully cut it up into a spiral. Within the ballet north -- the ballet dancers dance upon
the up on the carpet. Then ever so elegantly one of the ballerinas picks up the end of the carpet and it gradually unfolds. And then the dancers are
within that. So, the dancing -- this carpet actually becomes the eighth dancer.
AMANPOUR: And when you see it and when you saw it first perform, what did you think?
LINDER: Breathtaking. Breathtaking. And for the dancers too, they were saying, this carpet is like another dancer. She's like a cobra. When we're
inside her -- it was a she for some reason. When we're inside this carpet, we feel her erasing us a little too tightly.
AMANPOUR: With that, Linder, thank you so much indeed.
LINDER: Thank you. Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: What a tremendous woman. And coming up after the break, how the dire wolf is back after more than 12,000 years of extinction.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
AMANPOUR: Next, we turn to an amazing scientific breakthrough, the reincarnation of the dire wolf. The fearsome species went extinct over
12,000 years ago. A Dallas-based biotech company, Colossal Biosciences, is behind this new project, and Walter Isaacson speaks to its co-founder, the
Harvard University geneticist, George Church, about the implications of the de-extinction.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
WALTER ISAACSON, CO-HOST, AMANPOUR AND CO.: Thank you, Christiane. And, Professor George Church, welcome back to the show.
GEORGE CHURCH, CO-FOUNDER, COLOSSAL BIOSCIENCES: It's great to be here again.
ISAACSON: We woke up this week to headlines that weren't about tariffs or stock market crashes, but something really interesting, which is the dire
wolf kind of made famous in "Game of Thrones." After 10,000 years of distinction has sort of been brought back to life by a company you co-
founded. Explain what a big deal that might be.
[13:40:00]
CHURCH: Yes. We're trying to develop technologies that will help with various conservation efforts for preventing species from becoming extinct.
And if they just go over the line for a couple of days, not give up on them, maybe bring them back. In this case, it was more than a couple of
days, it was more like 12,000 years, but you get the idea.
So, the technologies are based on things like, you know, CRISPR and rewilding and sequencing of ancient DNA.
ISAACSON: When you say it relies a bit on CRISPR, that's the tool that you help pioneer that allows us to cut DNA in very specific places. And
eventually, you can sort of fix it and change the DNA. Explain how you did that with this the dire wolf.
CHURCH: So, more than just cut. So, sometimes when you cut, you just make a mess. These were all very precise. These are 20 very precise edits. And
so, this is a kind of a, you know, milestone where we're seeing exponential improvement in our ability to be precise and many of them at once.
And a lot of the precision is thanks to work for my colleague, David Liu, also a Harvard professor, to where you can change one base at a time very
precisely. Or we can substitute in big chunks of DNA, which is another thing that we're developing.
ISAACSON: You just mentioned David Liu, the Harvard professor. And he just won the breakthrough prize for what's called base editing and prime
editing, which means you can actually insert certain genes you want. Did you do that when you tried to recreate the dire wolf?
CHURCH: Yes. We have -- we're using both base editing and prime editing for various projects at Colossal.
ISAACSON: And one of the things about it is that you haven't really cloned the wolf. Explain the difference between what you did and cloning.
CHURCH: Well, so we used cloning as part of the process, but what we didn't do was, you know, find some magical sample where the nucleus of a
cell has survived. Instead, what we do routinely, for almost all the species that we work on, or all the ancient DNA that we work on is the DNA
is highly degraded and we read it with modern techniques into a computer, and then from the computer we synthesize it and then put it into a cell,
and then we will take the nucleus from that cell and move it into an embryo in a surrogate, in this case a dog. And then, create wolves. So, it --
there is cloning as a little piece of it, but mostly, the magic comes from multiplex precise editing.
ISAACSON: You know, it was almost 30 years ago when Dolly the sheep was cloned. I remember we put her on the cover of Time Magazine. It was going
to be a big deal. How come cloning hasn't really become that big of a deal?
CHURCH: Well, I think it's like a lot of things in our life, it is a big deal, but just nobody notices it. So, for example, we use cloning to also
create pigs for which are compatible with human transplants. The most recent transplant patient was a kidney done at Massachusetts General
Hospital January 25th of this year. So, this -- that's due to cloning as well. And there are many agricultural uses as well. So, it's a real thing.
It's just become so accepted that we take it for granted.
ISAACSON: Explain to me the dire wolf thing. What you did was you edited gray wolves to have lots of the DNA and traits of the extinct dire wolf.
But are these really dire wolves or are they gray wolves with some of the traits edited in?
CHURCH: So, the whole species definition is intentionally blurry in the Endangered Species Act, in all sorts of definitions. It's a mixture of what
can breed with what, what can -- you know, what has, you know, different physical traits and so forth. And also, you can literally speciate with as
little as one change, but there's millions of changes within a population, millions of differences say between you and me, but none of those are
species levels differences because, I think, most people would argue you and I are in the same species.
ISAACSON: So, this is a dire wolf, you would say?
[13:45:00]
CHURCH: I think this is much more recognizable as a dire wolf than any other kind of wolf. We also brought back -- we also, sorry, did clone the
red wolf, which is endangered species, probably the most rare wolf in the world. And that's most certainly a red wolf, even though it was quite a
different population.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you, the Jurassic Park question, which is what could go wrong reintroducing species like this into the wild, and is there some
regulation or self-regulation?
CHURCH: There's plenty of regulations. So -- and this applies to the pigs that I've referred to as well as the FDA regulates safety and efficacy,
both for the animal and in if -- in the case of transplants, for the human being there, there's a lot of regulations there. There's Environmental
Protection Agency and their equivalence in other countries. And that's -- and there should be. We're delighted to be working with this.
There's also considerations of, you know, local populations, indigenous people. I think we have a lot of support there, but we're not rushing into
this. We're not moving them on the, you know, public land until we've had a very broad conversation and consensus.
ISAACSON: What would happen if the dire wolves that you've sort of recreated just went out into the wild someday? Would everything be all
right or could there be a problem?
CHURCH: Again, I wouldn't rush to do that. We -- right now, they would probably be capable of breeding with a variety of other species -- what are
called species, but species, like I said, is a broad term and it -- and there's not sharp edges to the breeding. We could make them so that they
don't interbreed. We could even make them so they couldn't leave the enclosure that they're in, which is now 2,000 acres, which is quite
generous.
But yes, it remains to be seen what could go wrong? I -- just because we can't think of something right at this minute doesn't mean that we stop
looking for -- and engaging all kinds of ecologists and developmental biologists and so forth to think out of the box as to what could go wrong
before we do it.
ISAACSON: Your company that you co-founded has a $10 billion or more valuation. Explain to me what is the revenue stream? What do you envision?
CHURCH: I think that -- from the beginning that the -- what the investors were looking for and was new technologies. And in fact, that's already
happening. We've spun off Form Bio, which is a computational biology company, which has been instrumental in all the things that we've been
talking about today in this conversation.
We've also, in the process of making gambits (ph), we've spun off products, that's first FDA approved phase three trial for an IPS derived cell. I
mean, the jargon there, sorry, is that -- is IPS is a very important source of stem cells that is making its way into multiple medical products. But
this one jumped to the front of the line enabling maturation of eggs in IVF clinics. So, that's something that we had both veterinary and human use,
and there'll be many more. I'm sure.
ISAACSON: When you and I last spoke on this show about five or six years ago, you talked about artificial intelligence being important in what
you're going to do. Explain how that was relevant here and what you're doing with it.
CHURCH: Well, so back then it was just beginning to show that -- its value. I mean, I think a lot of people had seen it coming and a lot of
people hadn't. But today, it's undeniable. And I think one of the major applications of A.I., even more amazing than art and language, I think, is
its application to protein design. This was recognized in this year's Nobel Prizes.
And, in particular, my good friend and colleague, David Baker, has been doing this. And five of my recent startups use -- have used it routinely in
combination with large libraries. And we're using it essentially everywhere now for diagnostics, for therapeutics, for the kind of work that we've been
describing here on wild animals. It really is very helpful.
[13:50:00]
I mean, so far it definitely depends heavily on collaboration with humans and the creativity and out of box thinking and perspective and ethics of
humans. But it's tremendous time to be a scientist.
ISAACSON: You've spoken about using gene editing tools you've pioneered, including CRISPR, base editing, the things we talked about that David Liu
just won the breakthrough prize for. In order to recreate extinct species, could you create new species, ones that never existed before? Would that be
a good idea?
CHURCH: You asked, I mean, two questions, could you and is it a good idea? I think it could be done, technically, and it could be a good idea if you
want to have a species that has a particular niche, but you want it to immediately not interbreed with another species. And I think that that
could be very easily done. And it's one of the research projects in my lab is to figure out how to do that in as humane way as possible.
ISAACSON: Give me an example of what you are thinking about in the lab.
CHURCH: Well, so there a few examples of where you can get speciation with a single mutation. For example, the chirality of snails, cause a
speciation. and multiple -- it's been observed multiple times. You can get inability to produce fertile offspring if you have multiple reciprocal
translocations in the chromosomes. These are things that allow it to breed with itself, but not with the species that it came out of. So, those are
two examples. But there are many more. Behavioral changes can happen with single mutations and so forth.
ISAACSON: How many companies, by the way, have you co-founded?
CHURCH: I've co-founded 50 -- 49 or 50, and it's -- I've helped with a few -- quite a few more.
ISAACSON: By co-founding that many companies, you're sort of the poster child for why American science has been so innovative and entrepreneurial
ever since the end of World War II, which is there's a funding of basic research at universities and the people who do it find ways to translate
that from the bench and the lab to the bedside of a patient, for example, and to turn them into companies. Are you worried that the cuts in federal
support for basic research is going to end that 70-year boom that we've had in the United States?
CHURCH: Well, I worry about everything. I think in this particular case, I read something recently today that there is a proposal for $15 billion for
biotech, specifically so we can be competitive internationally. I don't know whether that will arrive or not and whether it will sufficiently
support basic science, but I completely agree with, I think, what you're saying, is that basic science has been important to almost -- well,
essentially everything that we've been talking about here and many others.
And increasingly, it goes very quickly from basic science to applications. Although, it doesn't need to. I think we need to be flexible in our support
of this. But it's inspiring, you know, no matter how dire, sorry to use the word, the economic reports can be to see, you know, new breakthroughs
having impact on healthcare and other aspects of our life is, I think, gives us new hope.
ISAACSON: George Church, thank you so much for joining us again.
CHURCH: Thank you.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
AMANPOUR: It would be great to know how many species possibly could be de- extincted, and perhaps even our environmental crisis.
Finally, let's take a moment to mark 27 years of peace in Northern Ireland. The Good Friday agreement was signed this week in 1998, bringing three
decades of conflict known as The Troubles to an end. More than 3,500 people were killed. The Peace Accord Achievement remains a beacon of hope for the
people pushing for this kind of solution around the world, and a reminder, of course, of what is possible as the Irish author Colin McCann reflected
when I spoke to him recently.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
COLUM MCCANN, AUTHOR, "TWIST": I'm 60 years old now, and when I was 16 years old, I would've told you it would've been entirely impossible for
things in Northern Ireland to be at peace. And for my island to have 27 years of peace, I would've laughed at you. I would've said that's
absolutely crazy.
[13:55:00]
But the thing about it is that there are people there, men and particularly women, in fact, especially in Northern Ireland, women of purpose and
conviction who believe that this stuff not only should stop, but will stop and has to stop.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
AMANPOUR: That is it for now. If you ever miss our show, you can always find the latest episode shortly after it airs on our podcast. Remember, you
can always catch us online, on our website, and all-over social media.
Thank you for watching. Goodnight and good luck from London.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[14:00:00]
END
