A conversation with Michael Crichton

with Michael Crichton
in Current Affairs, Books
on Monday, February 19, 2007 * * * * *

play

E-mail this video:

Distribute this video:

Share on:

Close
Description

An hour of conversation with Michael Crichton, one of the best-selling authors in American publishing. Crichton discusses his new book, "Next", about DNA, biotechnology and the ownership of disease. Crichton likens the human to a cloud interacting with the environment. He also talks about global warming, where he take a number of controversial positions, including the stance that carbon dioxide is not the primary driver of increasing world temperatures.

Video Share Options
Share
Buy Amazon DVD
Keywords:
DNA
Michael Crichton
global warming

In order to download Charlie Rose podcasts to iTunes for transfer to an iPod, you must have iTunes installed. If you do, please click the following link to download the podcast for this interview:

itpc://www.charlierose.com/view/itunes/1

Otherwise, close this window to continue viewing.

Close
  • Comments 14
    Post new comment
    1. Sisyphus  11/05/2008 09:03 PM Report

      As much as I respected Crichton, what he said to Charlie Rose on embryonic stem cells was frightening:

      CRICHTON: “. . .you say, “What is your image of an embryo that would be used for stem cell research,” and what everyone has in mind is a fetus. . . that is not what it is at all! It’s something that looks much closer to a soap bubble. Ultimately. . . this debate is going to go away, and embryonic stem cells are going to be so important. . .”

      Thus, if something is extremely small, its life has less value? (This coming from a man who was 6?9.”)

      Nevermind the fact that all success on stem cells have been adult stem cells. Embryonic stem cells have been a royal failure.

      Welcome to our brave new world.

    2. Jon B.  10/15/2008 12:31 AM Report

      Crichton reminds me of George Will in his thoughtfulness and mannerisms. A very intelligent and skeptical man (the latter of which should temper more scientific thought). Michael hit on such a good point (which Charlie erroneously uses as an argument to my frustration in some of his interviews), which is that "Consensus science is not science. This consensus stuff is about politics" (45:51-45:52). YES!!! This cogent rebuttal needs to be made more often! He eloquently points out this fallacy of logic, emphasizing the importance of data verification and validity, and science and the public at large needs to keep this in mind. Facts are what matter, not consensus! As another post points out, why didn't Charlie have the integrity to invite Crichton back with another scientist (or make it two on opposing sides) to debate the FACTS of the issue? In this forum such a debate could be insightful and informative, but unfortunately Charlie usually relies on one side of the issue to dominate a show.

    3. chris  09/29/2008 04:38 AM Report

      what does he mean at the end 450 genes separating us from chimpanzees not meaning anything? is this a significant number?

    4. Engineer  05/01/2008 09:02 PM Report

      The key point in the interview was when Michael said that less than 10% of scientists are certain that human activity is the cause of climate change. He then draws the conclusion that this uncertainty means that there is insufficient groupnd for us to make hard sacrifices.

      In engineering, we look at it differently. The key reason why one may need to act despite the uncertainities, if the consequence of making is a mistake is too great, we are forced to act. We do this all the time in engineering. We design system up to a point where the cost of the increased reliability (certainty) hits the threshold of the cost of loss x the probability of its occurance. Its called equivalent value by engineering economists. Even if there is a small chance that we contribute to climate change, since the costs of inaction are so great, we had better spend money to address it now.

    5. Tim Mccraw  03/10/2008 05:07 AM Report

      Charlie:

      I'm still waiting for you to invite your supposed "super-scientist" on with Crichton to "disprove" Crichton's supposedly "stupid belief" that global warming is not that big of a deal.

      Is it because you haven't found one?

      I bet you haven't -- nobody wants to go up against somebody with Crichton's brainpower on this issue because they would lose.

      Be honest with yourself now -- is global warming a big enough deal to be worried about to, for instance, fleece the US and the rest of the industrialized world over, and give the money to the UN?

      You know the answer is "no," by now, don't you?

      And beyond whether global warming is a big deal, which it isn't. What would the UN do with the money? They'd squander on wine, women, and weapons to fight US.

      I hope you won't continue to be deceived about this issue.

    6. Scott Miller  01/24/2008 11:10 PM Report

      For those of us that believe in global warming it remains relevant, and in fact incredibly important to keep in touch with the intelligent debate that continues. Although I (we) may disagree with his position, Mr. Chrichton's views should always be respected. Excellent interview.

    7. Terence  01/10/2008 10:02 PM Report

      Thank goodness that Charlie Rose presents one of the highest quality broadcasts for sensible debate. While Rose appears to be astounded at Crichton's views on global warming, he (Rose) allows and listens to the contra viewpoint expressed. For myself, I have read the science and am in agreement with Crichton. It's good to see a forum that allows the debate as opposed to the hysteria that the media pumps out daily.

    8. Gingerous  01/07/2008 06:10 PM Report

      oh, crichton, the original soporific. rose is off his game here. you can tell he's not confident speaking on this topic, and crichton just drones on and on...ironically, on morality in science.

    9. Thomas  11/16/2007 11:45 PM Report

      I wish there was some way to look inside Charlie Rose's coffee cup to know how much coffee he's had before the interview. If he's had the whole cup, you know he's going severely interrupt the discussion time and time again, like he does here. It was so frustrating to see Dr. Crichton start an response and then get interrupted only seconds into it by Mr. Rose. A very frustrating interview. Not without its interesting points, to be sure, but frustrating.

    10. Liz Schelper  10/20/2007 09:03 AM Report

      Referred to this show as a result of a discussion about climate change and anthropomorphic influence on it, I am glad I listened in. The political/emotional response to scientific work on this issue could be possibly as damaging as the climate change itself if not checked by imperical scientific method and sound management. Crichton's position should be considered.

    11. al medina  10/19/2007 12:37 AM Report

      Dear Sirs,

      Thank you for the fine program with Michael. There is a convergence going on (as Kurzweil elaborates) in genetics, biology, computers and nanotechnology. Kurzweil calls this "singularity". My take on what is to come is WOWIE ZOWIE! There will be both sides exposed of this marketplace coin - beneficent and maleficent. And we have no idea what either will look like!

    12. Marcus  08/23/2007 01:05 AM Report

      Charlie Rose has some real classy & fantastic interviews and this is certainly one of them. Michael Crichton's calm & collected nature in discussing such potent subjects is a welcome change to what I'm used to hearing.

    13. Paul Ric  07/12/2007 08:30 AM Report

      Excellent interview.

    14. Ryan Nix  06/01/2007 10:40 PM Report

      Terrific interview. What was most striking was his comments on the state of western science: Are we, as a western society, not interested in facts any more? Or, are we more interested in the next crisis, drama and tension that the media spins instead of looking at issues dispassionately and without bias?