George Bush’S Great America [EN]: Chapter 221

<220화>

CRISPR gene editing. It’s a genome editing technology developed in 2013, classified as third-generation. To explain it simply, focusing on its effects and avoiding technical jargon, it allows for the editing of ‘living cells,’ significantly expanding the scope of what’s possible.

And this is the most crucial point: experiments that previously took years can now be completed in about a week, with cost reductions exceeding 99.9%. Genome editing used to require expensive equipment and large-scale facilities, but now, even a basic individual-level research setup is sufficient to conduct experiments and achieve practical results.

The sheer volume of research produced thanks to this technology is staggering, but the key takeaway for the government is undoubtedly ‘cost reduction’ – or, more precisely, achieving more results with the same budget.

“I appreciate your explanation. You’re a very capable individual.”

The paper in Bush’s hand, disguised as a report, described first-generation technology. The second-generation technology, called TALEN, emerged in 2009. Bush is essentially attempting to leapfrog an entire generation, akin to jumping from medieval alchemy to modern chemistry.

While there’s some exaggeration, the analogy isn’t far off. Considering the efforts of researchers, it’s not fair to call it crude, but the difference between a simple shovel and a super-giant excavator capable of moving 240,000 tons of earth per day is immense. In fact, that comparison might even be an understatement.

When technology needs to advance beyond a single generation, or when the fundamental paradigm shifts, the most critical question is: ‘Do we have the supporting technology and economic power?’ A prime example is the steam engine, a key driver of the British Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution itself was a new era born from Britain’s geographical, economic, and technological advantages. The steam engine existed even before Christ, let alone in the 18th century.

The steam engine existed before the Industrial Revolution, but its low efficiency rendered it impractical. It couldn’t be used for industrial purposes until the 18th century, when technology had advanced sufficiently. This is ‘technology’ at play.

Furthermore, the textile industry’s rapid growth created a supply-demand imbalance, prompting Britain to develop weaving machines to meet the ever-increasing demand for textiles. This led to the creation of the cotton gin to separate cotton and thread, a single machine that replaced approximately a thousand jobs. Britain’s economic power swelled, which in turn fueled the development of the steam engine, eventually leading to the invention of the steam locomotive – a symbol of the era. This illustrates the importance of ‘economic power’.

In simple terms, skipping generations is ‘impossible’ if either the necessary technology or economic power is lacking. To illustrate, even if humans possessed a planet-sized spaceship capable of interstellar travel (a staple of space operas and science fiction), we couldn’t replicate it with our current resources.

Fortunately, the United States possessed both. It boasted the world’s highest GDP and a leading position in biotechnology, thanks to years of massive budget investments. This advantage was further amplified under the Bush administration.

Even without Bush’s intervention, second-generation gene editing tools would likely have emerged 3 or 4 years sooner. Therefore, Bush’s goal is simply to create a ‘stepping stone’ for technology to leap forward – a stepping stone that is strong, solid, and highly resilient.

Ordinarily, inspiring geniuses requires immense effort, time, or personal connections. Fortunately, Bush held the most powerful position in the country.

So, all he had to say was this:

“After listening to your explanation, I’m very interested in bacteriophages.”

“Bacteriophages, sir?”

“According to your explanation, can’t bacteriophages kill all bacteria?”

“Actually, not all bacteria are defenseless against bacteriophages. Some have developed resistance. However, there’s no need to worry about ‘invincible super bacteria’ that the media is hyping. To gain resistance to bacteriophages, bacteria must sacrifice their resistance to antibiotics.”

This fact, discovered by chance through massive, ongoing budget investments, would have been uncovered much later otherwise.

“Bacteria have resistance to bacteriophages? I thought bacteriophages were guaranteed to kill bacteria, according to your explanation?”

“That’s the thing. Just because a lion hunts a buffalo doesn’t guarantee success, does it? It’s a similar principle. My earlier explanation was a simplified overview to aid your understanding, like explaining to elementary school students that wood is an insulator, then explaining it as a conductor to high school students with more advanced knowledge.”

This kind of simplification occurs in every subject, especially mathematics. Even with the same problem, the solution and answer can differ significantly depending on the grade level.

“Is there detailed information about this process – the process by which bacteria develop resistance to bacteriophages?”

“Despite humanity’s progress, not everything is known. We still don’t fully understand it, but we expect to have detailed, quantifiable data within the next 2 or 3 years.”

He thought it was finally over. He believed he had provided a clear and comprehensive explanation, showcasing the technology to the President as effectively as possible. In short, he felt he had faithfully executed his mission and could rest assured that he wouldn’t be fired, even if a promotion was unlikely. If the President weren’t present, he would have shouted ‘Yes!’ repeatedly.

“I see. Then we need to allocate more budget.”

“Excuse me?”

He instinctively repeated the question, looking puzzled. The connection seemed illogical. Why did the topic of budget suddenly arise from a scientific discussion?

“I’ll have to present it to parliament. Based on current trends, it should pass within a month or so.”

“Excuse me?”

He was so dumbfounded that he couldn’t think straight and had to ask again. This question was even shorter than the previous one, reflecting the shock of someone who had meticulously prepared, smoothing his clothes and clearing his throat with anxiety before entering the office, hoping to avoid any mishaps.

Bush, observing the scene, smiled wryly and admitted that his explanation might have been lacking.

“I want to understand more about the interaction between bacteriophages and bacteria.”

Upon hearing this, his mind cleared. The explanation served as a key, unlocking a larger question and opening the door to understanding. He clearly grasped the President’s meaning.

In essence, it boiled down to ‘I’m curious.’

It was truly exhilarating. Allocating the country’s resources based on curiosity? While not purely for personal gain, at least the decision wasn’t misguided. And no one in the office would dare object.

“You can go now. You’re quite good at explaining. I’ll call you again next time.”

As someone with a strong desire for success, he was immensely pleased simply by the promise of future opportunities. The looming dread he had felt, which had caused his hair to stand on end, faded into the back of his mind.

“The advantage of this job is its prestige, but the disadvantage is that solving one problem only reveals another. With the EU establishing its own military, it’s becoming an increasingly uncomfortable presence for our country.”

There were even talks of the EU ‘graduating’ from NATO.

“I see a strong determination to resist our influence.”

‘It would have been nice if we could have swayed them like the UN. But the EU has a higher level of self-determination. The problem is, that self-determination isn’t ours.’

The UN and the EU are both international organizations, but they differ significantly. Beyond obvious differences like geographical scope, the core distinction lies in the principle of ‘coercion’. The UN issues ‘recommendations,’ which lack binding power. Therefore, UN recommendations can be politely ignored without causing major issues in international politics.

The UN represents the voices of the world, so ignoring it completely isn’t without consequences. However, if you can withstand the pressure, you can wield your power as you see fit. The United States currently operates in this way. While the US can influence the UN itself, leading to potential problems, it ultimately faces relatively few binding recommendations because it’s the UN’s primary financial contributor. The UN relies on financial support to operate, and the United States provides the largest share of its budget. Therefore, the UN is often compelled to follow the US’s lead, willingly or not.

In other words, the UN’s coercive power largely stems from ‘the will of the United States’.

On the other hand, the EU’s coercive power derives from the European Court of Justice. Its rulings are enforced as law. While budgetary considerations mean the EU can’t completely disregard capitalist principles, making it somewhat similar to the UN, it still possesses a degree of genuine coercive power, at least on the surface.

The European Court of Justice is composed of talented individuals selected by the European Council, which is in turn elected by politicians chosen by the people. Some argue that this represents the ultimate democratic union, but in reality, politicians don’t always act solely according to the people’s wishes.

Regardless, the key point is that the EU’s coercive power is entirely its own. The United States has little room to intervene. While intervention is possible through significant effort and resources, the outcome is uncertain.

“That’s right. What about England? Specifically, that ‘case’.”