EPISODE TRANSCRIPT
Content may be slightly edited for clarity.
Bey
Hello, hello, and welcome to So Curious, presented by the Franklin Institute.
Angelica
In this season, Human 2.0, we will be talking to scientists and non-scientists about technology, innovation and the human experience. We’re your hosts. I’m Angelica Pasquini.
Bey
And I am the Bul Bey. But you could just call me Bey.
Angelica
In today’s episode, we’re going to be talking to ethicist Anna Wexler, and the chief bioscientist of the Franklin Institute, Dr. Jayatri Das.
Bey
Okay. So we’re going to be talking about what’s right and wrong, and the decisions that people are making around the brain.
Angelica
Yeah. I think that this introduces the question of, like, right and wrong in science and in medicine. Right and wrong. Obviously, it’s not something that anyone can get along on, or get on the same page with since the beginning of time. So that’s not anything new. But I think that, okay, your idea of what is “being alive,” might not be mine. And that’s when we get into neuroethics as far as end-of-life care.
Bey
Right. What does it mean to be alive? Kind of brings up the question, like, what does it mean to be human.
Angelica
Exactly.
Bey
And to function in full capacity as a human being.
Angelica
Right. And what one person’s idea of full capacity is versus another’s.
Bey
Right. Who’s deciding? What’s your definition? Do you have a definition? Like, what’s a complete definition of what it means to be a human being?
Angelica
Let me think. All right. Being a human being, to me, means being human, but I love that word, “being” is in there. Presence? I would say that it really, to me, it probably dwindles down to that moment of, like, is the brain functioning at all?
Bey
Yeah. Those moments have to be really tough, right? And I’d imagine you’re basing that decision off of responses. Because maybe you can’t speak, but you blink and you can squeeze your hands. those different things. I would use those as measurements, but it is very difficult to tell, in those really kind of more nuanced moments of …There’s not necessarily mobile indicators of brain activity. And I am not a neural scientist, I can’t call it. But I certainly have a lot of questions, and I definitely want to find out more. Being a human is such an interesting question to inquire about. What does it mean to be human, to fully function as one?
Bey
Our first guest is Anna Wexler. Anna Wexler studies the ethics, legal, and social issues surrounding emerging technologies. As the principal investigator of the Wexler lab, she earned her PhD from MIT, where her dissertation centered on the DIY brain stimulation movement. Welcome, Dr. Wexler.
Angelica
Anna, thank you so much for joining us. Would you like to just introduce yourself a little bit about what you do?
Anna Wexler
Sure. My name is Anna Wexler. I’m an assistant professor of medical ethics and health policy at the University of Pennsylvania, and I study ethical, legal, and social implications of emerging technologies with a specific focus on neurotechnology.
Angelica
So your research interests include… I’m going to list them off. DIY medicine, citizen science, direct-to-consumer health products, online patient communities, neuroscience technologies, and alternative neurotherapies. I’m so interested in this, and I’m curious if you could tell us more about these terms.
Anna Wexler
I should say that I initially started out … I’ve always been fascinated by the brain and brain science, and I initially thought I wanted to be a bench scientist, and doing neuroscience in the lab. But then I decided it wasn’t for me. I was really interested in these really larger questions about what it means to understand the brain and what the impact of neurotechnologies would be on society. So I got into science communication. I actually started writing about neuroscience and the brain. And from there, I decided I didn’t want to write about other people’s stuff. I wanted to actually do some of my own work. And I was really fascinated by brain-computer interfaces, which is how you can communicate ….Basically like machines and brains and humans can communicate together. So I did a PhD studying some of the social implications of neurotechnologies. And while I was doing that, I heard about this phenomenon called do-it-yourself brain stimulation. So that’s one of the first terms.
Angelica
Yes, it is. And I’m so interested in what that means.
Anna Wexler
So DIY, do-it-yourself brain stimulation. So there was a movement that arose of people who had begun to basically mimic what scientists were doing. So in the lab, scientists were using brain stimulation. So basically electrical stimulation. Scientists were starting to experiment with this, and then people started reading about it, non-scientists started reading about it and started building these devices at home and stimulating their own brains with these low levels of electricity. And so that movement came to be known as do-it-yourself brain stimulation.
Angelica
Wow.
Bey
Would you consider them scientists in a way, respectfully or…? No?
Anna Wexler
That’s a very interesting question. When scientists, real…I mean, I don’t want to say “real scientists…”
Bey
It begs the question.
Anna Wexler
Professional scientists, who are working at institutions and who referred to themselves as scientists. I’ll say it like that….
Bey
Right. Right.
Anna Wexler
…Started hearing about this movement, they thought, “Nah, these people are really stupid. They’re really reckless. They shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing.” And in my work actually interviewing these people, I found that they were actually really smart and very well-informed, for the most part. So I don’t know if I’d call them scientists, but they are a lot smarter than I think they’ve been given credit for.
Angelica
Right. And the intention behind this movement…. Is it for people to feel better?
Anna Wexler
Partially. So people use it for different things. So some people were doing it for enhancement, and specifically for cognitive enhancement. So to try and improve their memory, their cognition, their learning abilities, other people were doing it to try and self-treat various disorders and diseases like depression or anxiety.
Bey
And is this citizen science as well? The DIY? What’s the difference between those two things?
Anna Wexler
Another very interesting question. So there is no single definition of what is do-it-yourself medicine, or what is citizen science. So my answer is going to be based on how I think people use the terms. So in citizen science, it’s often people coming together for some sort of general research purposes. They want to contribute to overall knowledge, not just do something for themselves and have that information just stay personal.
Bey
Right.
Anna Wexler
So with DIY brain stimulation, that was a personal thing. People are doing it almost like you would quietly take a medicine and not necessarily share it with people, or try and do something to maybe enhance yourself, but you wouldn’t be doing it to try and create some knowledge. Whereas citizen science is more about everyone contributing this sort of data to a whole, to create knowledge.
Bey
I appreciate that answer. Like, one is literally the individual and the other one has a more communal element to it. So I’m going to ask you this. We know there are ethics, there are laws, and there’s psychology involved in your work. But can you give us a synthesis of what it means to work at the crossroads of these complex science areas?
Anna Wexler
When you think about new technologies and how new technologies will change society, they don’t change society in one single way. Right? So they may present questions related to ethics, right? So maybe these things are covered by law, but a little ethically questionable.
Bey
A little gray.
Anna Wexler
A little gray, exactly. And in some cases they challenge laws. Or maybe a better way of putting that is, that new technologies often challenge existing laws and don’t quite fit into existing legal frameworks. And new technologies also change society in ways, right, these broader ways: the way we think, the way we act… It may not be a legal question and it may not be an ethical question, but ….Even just something as simple as the iPhone. That’s really just dramatically changed everything about our society. So the way I think about this is that you can have some interest in the technologies and then sort of…. What is their impact on these areas of ethics, these areas of law, these areas of society, and how can we think about those and understand them?
Angelica
I think about this all the time because it’s kind of something that you deal with after the fact. It shows up, it’s doing its thing, we all start to notice and then the questions all arise. Is that classically how this happens, or are there situations where there’s new developments and these questions are actually being asked before, to sort of save us from later having to deal with implications?
Anna Wexler
So that’s actually really debated in the field. It’s actually called anticipatory ethics. Can we start at the beginning, before these technologies make their way into the world? And can we ask those questions. But sometimes the problem there is, sometimes it’s too early. So people are asking those questions in advanc,e and they’re asking them now, and they’re asking them specifically about neurotechnology and other biotechnologies. But can you really ask those questions in advance, or is ultimately some of this stuff just unpredictable and you have to wait till it happens to then react?
Angelica
I’m really curious about alternative neurotherapies. Do you have any poignant examples of cases where ethics and medical technology might have gotten fuzzy in the hands of the people?
Anna Wexler
Yeah. So it’s something I write about, is when people are using a certain therapy that’s validated and used in the clinic, like transcranial magnetic stimulation. There are some people who use TMS, and then TMS has been shown to work for a number of indications. But then what happens when people start marketing it for things that it hasn’t been shown to work for? So maybe enhancement, for example, or some other clinical indications that there really isn’t good evidence, right? You get into the space of alternative medicine and people trying to market things or sell things or promote things to patients where there isn’t quite the evidence that’s there at the moment. And another thing that they might do is they also, some people, sort of modify the technology a little bit. So they don’t give the validated known stimulation parameters for TMS, but they’ll start modifying the stimulation a little bit, giving it differently. And so you start to get into this space where you started with this technology that was approved for one thing and that we know there’s some evidence for it, but maybe it starts to be marketed for something else and the technology itself gets changed. And again, this really interesting ethical and legal space where, at what point is this new thing and this new promotion of it ethically questionable and legally questionable and different from the well-validated technique?
Angelica
Yeah!
Bey
Who says what’s right? How does that inform our laws, do you think our laws as they stand today, I don’t know, are sound and have a good relationship with science?
Anna Wexler
So on the whole, yes. But there’s these certain gray areas where there are these challenges, and this is one of those gray areas, and specifically, with physicians. So physicians have a lot of leeway to basically do what they want, not completely, but if they want to promote a certain technique for a certain indication or make slight modifications to something that’s already been approved, they can do that. The FDA, the Food and Drug Administration, they regulate the companies that sell drugs and the companies that sell devices. They don’t regulate what physicians do. So physicians have a lot of leeway. And so under the law, it’s okay. But sometimes these things get a little bit ethically tricky and complicated, and that’s where the gray zone sort of comes in. I think it’s with regards to ethics. Like, is it ethically okay to sell something to a patient or promote something to a patient when there’s not a lot of evidence for it?
Angelica
So is that one way we would know? I have a question of how do we know if something is a scam in DIY medicine?
Anna Wexler
It’s hard to know which is an ethics question. So, who’s responsible for putting out information that might be scamming you or might be misleading, and who’s responsible for doing their homework? So if you’re somebody who’s selling some of these techniques, you might say, well, I’m just offering it for what I think works. And then the person who’s buying the purchaser or the services or whatever might not know to do their homework on this specific [thing].
Angelica
And where have you seen that played out? Maybe something that was marketed, for one thing, and it was so not that thing.
Anna Wexler
I think coming back to this alternative neurotherapy stuff. So some of my work now looks at how neurotherapies are promoted, who’s promoting them, what the qualifications of those people are to promote them, and what the evidence is for those. And so we’re not doing like, a focus on each individual person, but we’ve done studies of the websites of people who are promoting neurostimulation technologies for off-label indications. So for indications for which these devices and techniques were not initially made.
Bey
What personal experiences have you had that helped shape your ethical compass, if you will?
Anna Wexler
We think of ethics as a very personal thing, right? At the same time, like, if you talk to somebody about ethics, it’s something that feels very personal. But I think in bioethics writ large, it feels like it’s a lot about philosophy and less about the personal experience and more like this academic endeavor that’s less shaped by what I think is right and wrong. I can answer it in a different way, which is that the thing that’s helped me the most in thinking through ethical questions, especially when they come up in certain areas of science, is really having a firm understanding of the science itself. That helps clarify what I think in terms of ethical and social implications, like where this is going.
Angelica
Yeah.
Anna Wexler
So it’s not a personal answer, but when I think of something that’s, like, really helped, what guides my thinking, it starts with a grounded understanding of the science, and then from there thinking about the ethics and then from there thinking about the law.
Angelica
Yeah. I think this is the perfect time in our history to have people like you keeping an eye out on all this because there’s so much innovation, and with that, there’s always going to be opinion.
Bey
Yeah. Well, thank you so much. And thank you for sharing your experiences. It really means a lot, especially to us. We’re really curious. We were like, jammering on before you got here trying to figure it all out.
Anna Wexler
Totally. Yeah! Thank you. Thank you so much for having me. I appreciate it.
Angelica
Wow.
Angelica
That was really interesting. Do-it-yourself medicine and citizen science!
Bey
Yeah. And some of the new thoughts around laws. And I love how careful she was. She was like, “I can’t say what’s right, what’s wrong. A lot of stuff is so new. We’re all figuring it out.”
Angelica
Yeah, right on. And also you could tell that she’s really invested and she’s a great person to have around at this time of innovation.
Bey
And I really appreciate her not like taking away from the people online, figuring out science and jumping into it on the Reddits and on those little message boards.
Angelica
Okay, let’s switch gears here and bring out our last guest for this episode. You know her, you love her, you learn from her, you live with her, and you might laugh with her. Please welcome the chief scientist of the Franklin Institute, Jayatri Das, for our recurring segment called Body of Knowledge, where we discuss our episode topic in a more open-forum discussion. We’re going to be asking questions, talking about ideas, putting our curiosities out into the world. Jayatri. Hi.
Jayatri Das
Hi, Angelica. Hi, Bey.
Bey
Hey.
Angelica
So on this episode, we spoke about neuroethics. A lot going on under that term. What does that make you think of?
Jayatri Das
It’s really interesting, because when you start thinking about the brain and technology and medicine, there are some questions that start to arise that are different, because it kind of gets to the heart of who we are. The brain is the embodiment of us as individuals. Right? And so when you start thinking about the science around the brain and what that means, there are questions that scientists and ethicists are asking that need to shape how the science moves forward.
Bey
Right.
Jayatri Das
And so when I think about it, there are the questions that scientists want answers to, and then are the questions that scientists can’t answer because they’re really about our human values.
Bey
That’s a big question. I think about ethics. That’s the part of the word that kind of jumps out to me. What’s right or wrong? And as we try to advance our understanding of science and human activity in our brain and try to help with Alzheimer’s or other brain limitations, if you will, where should we stop and where should we progress? That’s kind of what jumps out to me when I see neuroethics.
Angelica
I think of neuroethics being like “The Real Housewives of Science.” It’s drama. This is where the drama lies. It’s like, how far is too far? What is Adderall? Is it fair? There’s all these questions, are these things fair? And then you can spiral it out? Is makeup fair? Is getting a blow dryer fair. What are these ethical questions? Applying them to science is really inherently dramatic. And of course, that’s fun for us to talk about.
Bey
Yeah, yeah.
Angelica
But of course, then there’s medicine and much deeper subjects. Okay. But also your everyday things. Okay. What’s an advantage of a gorgeous, expensive pen versus a really basic one from CVS? It’s like, what kind of experience are you having? You know, this is science!
Bey
I also had some pretty basic examples of my brain, like monster energy drinks. Is that something that enhances or limits, or gives you an advantage, or anything like that tonight? Probably not.
Jayatri Das
You guys kind of hit the nail on the head. In terms of taking ethics and then pushing into this neuroscience aspect of it. Because we think of ethics as “what’s right and what’s wrong?” And that’s true for a lot of things in science. But I think where neuroethics is kind of special is that… Are those questions different when you’re talking about the brain? And this is a question that neuroethicists ask themselves, are we just, like, navel-gazing, or is there something that’s actually different when we’re talking about the brain?
Bey
Right.
Jayatri Das
And one of the cool projects that I work on is working with an international consortium of neuroethicists who are trying to think about, how do we do this in a way that brings different voices to the table, and is kind of proactive, so we’re not trying to figure this out after the science is already out there. So there’s lots of people who are really interested in figuring out what are the questions to ask, and then what are the answers to those questions, and how do we find them out?
Bey
Are there any kind of dangerous science practices in terms of exploring the brain? Like, hey, don’t explore this part of the brain because this is, I don’t know, sacred or touchy, or is there, just, hey everything is fair game?
Jayatri Das
Well, we’ve kind of learned that lesson the hard way. Okay. I mean, if you look through the history of neuroscience and neurosurgery, there were, in the not-so-distant past, people thought that a treatment for epilepsy was just to sever the connections that connected the two halves of the brain together. Yeah, we shouldn’t do that!
Bey
Wow.
Angelica
Yeah.
Jayatri Das
So there are lessons that we’ve learned, as we’ve learned more about the brain. But there’s also this really interesting cultural aspect of the brain that you brought up in terms of it being sacred. And that’s something that I think brings a different lens to this part. This type of ethics is… For instance, in some Asian cultures, the brain, and even thinking about how we take care of the dead, of our ancestors, plays a role in terms of people’s willingness to donate their brains to science.
Bey
Right. And I know that’s so important. Organ donation.
Jayatri Das
Yeah. And so this is a question that some of the Chinese and Korean scientists that I’ve been talking to think about a lot, is, how do we encourage people to be open to the idea of donating brains? Because otherwise they’re being left out of the science that could potentially help us.
Angelica
Right. Which I totally understand. And something that came up for me is thinking, like, people have the right to be left out and the dignity of that choice, sometimes. If they say, like, I’d really rather not be a part of this, then they don’t have to, right? But it’s like, I hear what you’re saying because as we progress, the less you get involved, you sort of do get left behind, in studies as well. Another thing I thought of was the consequence of the “hysterical woman,” and then, like, the lobotomy that they would be given. Or like our … Culturally, schizophrenia. Certain cultures I know I have friends that went to Peru and did ayahuasca and learned about the science of the shaman in the rainforest. Right. And how those people, if they were here, would not be treated with the respect that they’re treated there, or asked for advice or some sort of sacred information. The neuroethics here in our country, compared culturally to other countries, is fascinating.
Jayatri Das
That aspect of that stigma around mental health and mental illness is one of the big questions that scientists are thinking about, is that if we figure out kind of a biological basis for mental illness, for instance, like, how does that affect the social stigma? Does it make it better? Because then we kind of think about mental illness as just another type of physical illness? Or does it categorize people even further?
Angelica
Okay. As always, we’re going to finish off our Body of Knowledge by seeing what other people are curious about when it comes to neuroethics. So we turn to the Internet, our beloved friend and worst enemy, to see what people are talking about “online.” Ever heard of it? So for this part, we’re going to read off the most popular Google searches surrounding neuroethics, and we’re going to talk about them.
Bey
As it relates to neuroethics, a question is: what does it mean to be human? And I know that’s a very big question.
Jayatri Das
It is. Let me throw a question back to you guys. Say that you had a robot and you were adding characteristics to it to make it human.
Bey
Okay.
Jayatri Das
What would you add?
Bey
Empathy?
Angelica
Yeah. Honestly, humans: shame, healthy sense of shame, but also a very unhealthy sense of shame. That’s what humans are carrying around. Okay. People, shame.
Bey
I love the way you think. I love it.
Angelica
But shame is human, and it informs our decisions. I think it’s what animals don’t have, you know what I’m saying? Like, they’re not thinking about it over and over, which is going back to the looping, which is going back to what everyone’s trying to do with a lot of medications and meditation. It’s like, how do I stop this rumination? So I feel like that’s very human.
Jayatri Das
Yeah, I love that. So I love the fact that both of you, maybe you took it kind of for granted that all of these sensory functions, like being able to just collect information about the world, “yeah, yeah, yeah, that’s all a given.” A robot can do that, but that doesn’t make us human.
Bey
Right.
Jayatri Das
It’s jumping to that higher level.
Bey
Yeah, 100%. I know. I think the through-line between both of our answers, Angelica, is connection. Right? Connecting, because I said empathy as a way to hopefully have this hypothetical robot connect to the spaces and the things around them in ways in which I would be healthy, productive, and they can live on in a happy, functioning way. And I’d imagine shame kind of holds that function. From my experience, shame is kind of like that fear that we will be disconnected from the community.
Angelica
Right.
Bey
So if I’m ashamed that I did something, I’m ashamed or scared that that thing that I did will disconnect me from the larger group, and that I’ll be outcasted. And as humans, we want to be a part of a group, and social, and part of a community. In my mind, that’s what it means to be human.
Jayatri Das
Well, let me flip the question on you now.
Bey
Okay.
Jayatri Das
Say you have a human and they lose their sense of shame or sense of empathy. Are they still human?
Bey
Dun dun dun…!
Angelica
They might be in a human body. All right. And I think there’s a negative connotation to the word shame. I just want to be really clear. I think that there’s a healthy sense of shame that keeps us from walking around naked and upsetting everyone around us or throwing things around and doing crazy things. Right. We live in a society. Okay. So that has its own things people have to say about that. Right. But anyway, my point is, if you took away empathy and shame or any of these kinds of relating qualities, I do think it would make a robot and not a human. But personally, I don’t want my technology personally having empathy towards me! I’m like, don’t talk to me too much. Let me tell you what to do, and then leave me alone. I don’t want it coming to comfort me. It’s a robot. I’m a human being. Know your place! That’s just what I think. But we are talking about ethics.
Bey
Right. Well, I was going to answer the question to say, I think if you took those things away from a human, my instincts would be like, yes, they’re still human.
Jayatri Das
One of the interesting new developments in neuroscience that’s really asking this question is the fact that we can now take human brain cells and start to grow them in a dish. These are called brain organoids, and they’re useful for all sorts of reasons in terms of modeling what’s happening in the brain and modeling, potentially, different diseases and things like that. But at what point does this clump of cells in a dish become conscious? Like, when does it become human? And we don’t really have a good definition for that.
Bey
Yeah, that’s scary.
Angelica
That is scary. So we want to know what people are asking about being a human being.
Jayatri Das
Interesting! And what came up?
Angelica
So the first one that came up was, “humans are warm-blooded.”
Jayatri Das
Really? That’s number one of all the things? Well, that’s kind of boring!
Bey
Am I ignorant in not knowing that answer? I think the answer is yes.
Jayatri Das
Humans are warm-blooded, but —
Bey
Okay, great!
Jayatri Das
So are like every other mammal, right. That doesn’t make us special.
Angelica
Yeah.
Jayatri Das
Let’s see if there’s a more interesting question. Keep going.
Bey
“Humans are social creatures.”
Jayatri Das
Interesting. Okay, so that starts to touch on some of these aspects of being connected that make us human. Cool.
Bey
I love this next one. You want to go for it?
Angelica
Sure. “Humans are evil by nature.”
Jayatri Das
Oooh!
Bey
Neuroethics!
Angelica
Beyond, yes!
Jayatri Das
Yes. Now that’s getting to some judgment there.
Angelica
Yeah. Evil.
Bey
What’s evil, what’s good?
Angelica
I mean, this is the oldest story in the book. The oldest book. Okay. Theoretically, the freaking Bible. Okay. So if we really want to go there today, let me know.
Bey
And the next one is humans are omnivores.
Jayatri Das
Okay. I think the warm-blooded, the omnivores. I think those are good examples of how we can think about the biological aspects of humans that don’t really get us into neuroethics. There’s nothing that pushes into questions of like, identity about being an omnivore.
Bey
Right?
Angelica
Right.
Jayatri Das
Okay. Maybe I take that back as I start thinking about what it means in terms of how we interact with other animals. Right. I take all of that back!
Bey
You’re asking questions.
Angelica
Omnivore is both eating meat and vegetables, right?
Jayatri Das
Yes.
Angelica
OK. Yeah, they are. Okay. This is what people are asking. But the truth is, yes, they are. They eat vegetables and meat generally, yes.
Jayatri Das
So humans are omnivores. But then that gets into starting to get into the different choices that people make. Just because we can digest both meat and vegetables doesn’t mean that all people choose to. Right. And then that snowballs into questions about how do we use animals for research.
Angelica
Absolutely.
Jayatri Das
And that is a huge point of contention in neuroethics right now, right?
Angelica
Yes.
Jayatri Das
Because what can we learn from mice and rats and what benefit does that bring us? And what happens when we start experimenting on other primates?
Bey
Right. You want to go for the last one?
Angelica
“Humans are gods.”
Jayatri Das
Oooh, that’s deep.
Angelica
Yeah, it is. I don’t know. I guess people go to Google for really deep things. That is true, so…!
Jayatri Das
So what does that mean to you guys, when you think about, say, humans are gods?
Bey
Obviously my brain kind of rejects it when it just hits my ear. However, I do have an understanding of, a very basic understanding, that we’re made of stardust and so we’re made up of the universe and the different things that are floating around. And I don’t know, to me that strikes me as Godlike, or made up of the same elements. So maybe we have a piece of God in us? That is, I think, something outside of a podcast about science! It strikes me as no. But as I sit and ask questions and remain a little bit more curious and open about it, I’m like, well, we are made of stardust, and the universe is pretty big and godlike, and so on and so forth, and that’s where I trail off.
Angelica
Thanks so much, Jayatri and thank you so much for tuning in to this episode of So Curious. This podcast is part of the Franklin Institute. The Franklin Institute is a science museum located in Philadelphia. The Franklin Institute’s mission is to inspire a passion for learning about science and technology. For more information on everything about The Franklin Institute, visit fi.edu. This podcast is produced by Radio Kismet. Radio Kismet is Philadelphia’s premier podcast network for businesses looking to develop their own branded podcast content. Check them out at radiokismet.com.
Angelica
There’s a lot of people who make this podcast happen. Thanks to the producers Joy Montefusco and Jayatri Das, our managing producer, Emily Charish, our operations head, Christopher Plant, our associate producer, Liliana Green, our audio team Christian Cedarlund, Goldie Bingley, Lauren DeLuca and Brad Florent, our development producer Opeola Bukola, our science writer Kira Villette and our graphic designer, Emma Sagar. See you next week!
