The Future of Healthcare with Dr. Bertalan Meskó

In this interview, Don MacPherson is joined by Dr. Bertalan Meskó. Dr. Meskó is The Medical Futurist and the Director of the Medical Futurist Institute. Don and Dr. Meskó discuss recent developments in the field of medical technology including AI, wearables, telemedicine, risks to privacy, and addiction. They also talk about four different national healthcare models as well as the futures of mental health and the addiction treatment field.

Season Four of the podcast is dedicated to exploring the future and how life is sure to change over the next decade. This episode explores the changes in how we approach healthcare, and how innovative technologies will usher in a new way of maintaining our health.


Season 4 Episode 1, The Future of Healthcare with Bertalan Mesko

Don MacPherson: Hello, this is Don MacPherson, your host of 12 geniuses. I have the incredible job of interviewing geniuses from around the world about the trends shaping the way we live and work. Today, we go to Budapest, Hungary to explore the future of healthcare. Like so much of our lives. Healthcare has gone digital. Today's guest is the director of the Medical Futurist Institute, Dr. Bertalan Meskó.

We discuss how devices like fitness trackers and embedded sensors along with telehealth, are empowering patients by putting them at the center of the healthcare experience. Dr. Meskó also discusses what this means to privacy and how we can protect patients who may not be tech-savvy. This episode 12 Geniuses is brought to you by the think2perform Research Institute, an organization committed to advancing moral, purposeful, and emotionally intelligent leadership.

You can learn more and access the institute's latest research at t2pRI.org.

Dr. Meskó, welcome to 12 Geniuses.

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Thank you so much for having me.

Don MacPherson: You are Director of the Medical Futurist Institute. Could you talk about what the organization does and what you do for the organization?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Of course, I would love to. I'm the medical futurist, my job is to try to help organizations like medical associations and governments, as well as individuals like patients and physicians, understand the context around digital health technologies.

What does artificial intelligence mean? How we can use wearables, sensors, robotics or 3D printing in the everyday practice of medicine. And that's what we do with a small team of 15 people on medicalfutureist.com and its later channels. And at the Medical Futurist Institute, we do the same in peer-reviewed research. We publish studies about the same topics, basically, they're all AI and the future of medicine, as well as how digital health technologies shape the doctor-patient relationship.

Don MacPherson: When you think about the future of healthcare and medicine, how does it look a decade from now?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: I think most people might expect that in a decade from now, we will have shiny hospitals full of great technologies, but the vision of the share at The Medical Futurist is a bit different because having those big hospitals is just not efficient enough. The vision of these share has something into focus, which is digital technologies, making patients the point of care, meaning wherever you are, you should be able to receive diagnostics, treatments, monitoring... And your life wouldn't depend, whether you can get to a physical location or not, the physical location would get to you because now we can measure data with these technologies and you can even make good decisions remotely.

Don MacPherson: Can you define what you mean by digital health technologies?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Of course. There have been many discussions since the beginning of the 21st century about some advanced technologies like health sensors, wearables, fitness trackers, as well as robotics, 3D printing, artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and many others. And how these technologies have been shaping the delivery of healthcare -the practice of medicine- and most of these discussions have been about how this is all a big technological revolution. While we have been publishing about this, we think this is a cultural transformation of healthcare. So here are these amazing technologies that just came out a few years ago.

The whole transformation you see in healthcare might be initiated by these technologies, but the driving force is the way the doctor-patient relationship is changing because of these technologies, the driving forces, how the role of a passive patient is transforming into a proactive empowered patient role. How the role of the physician who is burned out and has to take all the responsibility for medical decisions is still doing administration in 60% of their time becoming a proactive e-physician who can enjoy using technologies and spending their precious time with the patient while being surrounded by these advanced technologies. So, by digital health, we mean this cultural transformation.

By this, we mean that we do use disruptive technologies, but only for the purpose of improving the doctor-patient relationship. And the reason why we think it's so important to say this out loud, that this is a cultural transformation, is that if you put really amazing technologies into a hospital right now... you bring their AI-based algorithms, VR devices, and headsets, and all the signals from wearable sensors you know about... I guarantee that the quality of care will not improve. Not by tomorrow, not even in six months or a year. Because people work in the system and if we don't embrace the cultural components of this change, then technologies alone cannot make healthcare better. We can make it better by using these advanced technologies.

So that's what digital health is about.

Don MacPherson: Now, please understand that healthcare and medicine is not my background, but I do have an idea for where the field could go. And so I want to describe a scenario for you and you tell me if I'm off base or that is where we're heading. When you talk about digital healthcare, you're talking about sensors, you're talking about fitness apps, you're talking about artificial intelligence. So I'm thinking about, a patient who might have a different sense there's embedded in their body, maybe using a fitness app or fitness tracking system. And that information is being shared via the cloud to some sort of healthcare system. And it's matching my data with millions of other people who might fit into a demographic like mine and it's sensing when I might be at risk for a heart attack or it's sensing before I get type two diabetes that I might be at risk for type two diabetes, and it's alerting my physician. And then we're having a conversation about it. Is that where we're headed? Is that a somewhat accurate description of what the future might look like?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: I think it is. And it's not even futuristic enough. If you didn't mention diabetes at the end, I would say this has happened so many times before with smartwatches that can do an ECG and send a warning sign to the user’s smartphone if there is a risk for atrial fibrillation. That's also a risk for stroke.

We had a story published on MedicalFuturist.com last Christmas where an IT developer from Budapest had a smartwatch. He got a gift for Christmas and a smartwatch immediately warned him that he might have a risk for atrial fibrillation. So he went to get himself checked out two days later during Christmas time and it turned out that he required an operation. Because if it's a serious issue, even though he had no symptoms and maybe even years from that time, he would not have had any symptoms. But he was lucky. So in many medical conditions, it has been happening already.

In the scenario you mentioned, I think it's absolutely viable because these are the papers, studies, and trends that you're seeing day by day showing how AI-based databases and algorithms can help predict disease outcomes or might even help catch diseases as early as possible. The issue is not whether it's technologically possible. Now I think by 2020, we cannot conclude that there is zero doubt that not only in diabetes, in hundreds of medical conditions and thousands of medical outcomes or clinical outcomes, it is possible to use these AI-based systems for such an early warning or prediction systems.

But the issue is the privacy part. That without our data, without your medical records, your insights from your smartwatches... So, your data coming from all sorts of background resources, there is no AI revolution. So, we must share some parts of it so companies can develop better algorithms that can make these accurate predictions.

It's a scenario where we will have to lose some parts of our privacy to have the systems that you just described.

Don MacPherson: You talk about a few different models, different countries that are doing things differently. China, Rwanda, the United States, and Estonia. Would you mind talking about those models as it relates to privacy and the type of care that is being given in those countries?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Absolutely. I was invited to give a keynote at GLOBESEC. One of the most exciting global events about privacy security and cybersecurity. And I was asked to focus on digital health components of this technological, cultural AI revolution. And we sat down with some of our researchers and we came up with four scenarios by focusing on the freedom of choice in this respect.

So the issue was what if we have a country with a certain healthcare system, and if you have a patient in that system, what kind of freedom of choice that patient has. And that freedom of choice can come from different sources.

Like if someone lives in China or they implemented AI system surveillance systems using artificial intelligence, in many cases, you have no chance of opting out. You are being pushed to use these systems. Like the credit score system, they developed about two years ago. Therefore, there's not much freedom of choice, but they do use AI-based technologies even for medical purposes.

In countries like Rwanda, where there was a genocide 25 years ago, and they simply didn't have the financial background to build a traditionally normal healthcare system. They had to take a leap into digital health. So, in Rwanda medical drones can deliver supplies to locations that the ambulances cannot reach. They use telemedicine for most of the country because of the logistical reasons and logistical issues and road conditions. So, they have AI-based medical records systems using a UK based company, Babylon health services. So, they took a leap, but it's not really a freedom of choice, but their patients can use these technologies because either they use these advanced technologies or they don't receive care at all.

And then the third scenario was having a country with a system where patients do have freedom of choice like back in the US, but it is patients who have to push this agenda forward. Many physicians have no incentives for using these technologies or to answer questions about technologies and genomic tests that patients have at home. Therefore, patients have the freedom of choice, but in practice, it doesn't really work out. Because the other stakeholder, medical professionals, have been left out of this conversation and are left without the incentives.

And the fourth one was more like a rainbow scenario, like in Estonia, where even the elderly population received free genomic tests. In many other countries, they would say, why should they give a genetic test to the elderly population while it might be late to predict diseases from happening?

It's a cruel expression or a cruel sentence, but that's how many countries think. Not Estonia. There they provide even elderly people, the genomic tests. So, they are really pushing hard to try to predict and prevent as many things as possible. Patients have freedom of choice. They can just use traditional healthcare, or they are opting to use these advanced technologies. And they have a system built-in for that. They have incentives for medical professionals, they have clear policies to make it happen.

So we didn't want to pinpoint these four countries. We just wanted to give or different pictures about the freedom of choice and the chance that patients have about using digital health technologies for their healthcare.

Don MacPherson: When you think about the United States, you talked about us having an incentive issue. How can we overcome that?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: In many cases, the physical examination is simply overhyped, and we don't need it to happen that often. But for decades, we have been talking about this and many others have been talking about the importance of extending the doctor, patient communication towards a range of digital communication channels and technologies.

But there were so many physicians against it. There were no clear policies for it and no professionals to help patients understand the expectation and the consequences. Then there was a big rejection overall. But because of the COVID pandemic this March, it happened overnight. In the span of weeks, in many places in the world, from Catalonia to the US I've seen skyrocketing numbers about video consultation visits, because simply patients and physicians didn't have a chance to choose from.

They have to choose to opt-in to use video consultation or telephone services. Otherwise, they would not be able to provide or receive care at all. So, this technological transformation has happened overnight, but the cultural components are still missing. So for the incentive part, what would help definitely is if medical associations started providing clear policies about remote care and considered it not like an extension to the traditional doctor-patient meetings, but an absolute essential core element of practicing medicine. Because what's different here is that I can see you in person, but for many medical issues and questions, I don't have to see you in person. So this is not something like an external component. It should be at the core of practicing medicine. That would definitely be a first foot forward, but also it's not rocket science.

In the medical associations, like the Canadian Medical Association, they have provided good enough solutions for that. Pushing their own governments to implement the policies that they have created to make remote care a part of everyday medicine.

Don MacPherson: One more question about the United States. Many people here receive healthcare from their employer and as a result of that, or because they do receive healthcare from their employer, privacy is absolutely critical.

And I can imagine a future where if healthcare records did get somehow hacked and employers were able to see records or some sort of screening process or were able to access healthcare records of future employees, that could be a very, very challenging thing for many people who are seeking to leave their employer for another employer.

Do you have any comments on that and ways around that potential issue or challenge?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: I understand that in countries like the US you depend on your insurance system, whether you get it from your employer or you have a private insurance system, but we see that the trends at least show that healthcare is becoming more and more globalized.

I might be able to receive better care or service through the systems I can get access to because I have an internet connection and I can reach out to technologies and startups for advice compared to the care I received from my country. Just to give you a real-life practical example that has happened in reality... I can send a cancerous tissue sample to a Belgian start-up where they can sequence the DNA, the genome, of that cancerous tissue, trying to find driver mutations that might make me eligible for a clinical trial that might be run by a French pharma company on a Spanish Island. And that clinical trial would include precision therapy, focusing on the driver mutation my own cancerous tissue contains. This way I could receive, again, precision-targeted treatment for my cancer without meeting anyone in my country's healthcare system.

I'm not saying that this is an ideal scenario, but that's how healthcare is becoming globalized. That's how we might end up depending more on individual services and companies, rather than just solely on our government's or country's healthcare system.

Don MacPherson: That's a really good point. I've heard stories about people from the United States flying to India for surgeries, elective surgeries because the cost was so much less or seniors going to Mexico to get medication filled, or going to Canada because the medication was cheaper.

But the example that you laid out has a lot of potential. And especially for someplace like Europe where countries are pretty close together. You can get to various countries that might have different services available to people. So that is a very, very interesting point that healthcare is becoming more global.

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: And I might not even have to travel to a country. So I don't even want to talk about medical tourism, just my data traveling across borders instead of me. And at the end of the day, I can still get the prescription or medication I need, or treatment in general that I need, even if I can get it in my country, but to find out which treatment would work best for me... maybe my country is not able to help me get that because of the socialized medicine system they have because of the lack of financials for implementing really state-of-the-art technologies like liquid biopsy in cancer or genome sequencing. But I can still reach out and send my samples across borders. I think it's more important here than me physically traveling to a location to receive that.

Don MacPherson: Getting back to digital health technologies. When you think about aging populations, do you see barriers for people who may be elderly understanding how these technologies work and being able to get the most out of these technologies?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Unfortunately, I do. Just like in the case of any other technologies being used by the elderly population not coming from healthcare. For those who have not grown up learning to use newer and newer gadgets and devices, for them, it might even be inhuman to turn to technology to have a discussion with their medical professionals.

But first, when there is no other chance of doing that, of having a discussion with their medical professionals, then they opt in to use that. Second, what I see as an example around the world is that their now middle-aged kids are bringing new technologies into their lives and homes and the kids help them install and establish these technologies. And maybe help them understand that now we cannot even visit you in person during the pandemic, but through these digital channels, these tablets and smartphones, we can still have conversations even daily.

And I think it also shows the importance of the cultural component of these technological changes. That it's not about us pushing the elderly population to use a device we want them to use. It's about helping them realize that what these technologies are useful in, or useful for. And the examples I've seen even around my family and my relatives is that when they find out that this way they can, for example, get in touch more easily with their grandkids. Then they do it immediately because that's a huge inspiration or motivation for them to keep on using the device.

But what definitely doesn't work is just dropping technologies at them and expecting that their healthcare will be better. It requires their kids and it requires the medical professionals to help them embrace this transformation and to be there for them even emotionally and culturally to help understand how these technologies work, what these technologies can bring to the table, and why it makes sense to use them.

Don MacPherson: You've said that the future is telemedicine and at-home lab tests, I think I'm paraphrasing that or recalling that correctly. We've talked about telemedicine. Could you talk about what at-home lab tests are, and what sort of availability is there right now, and what there will be in the future?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Last year I had many different at-home lab tests because I always want to test new technologies. I had many genomic testing services, and I use total genome sequencing and so on to learn about how this works so I can describe to the general population about what they can expect from those technologies and services.

So last year, I had many at-home blood tests because those companies started providing such tests. Which means you order the test, like for example, about food allergies or medication sensitivity, they send you a sampling tube or they have different packages for different purposes.

I sent back a sample I could collect at home. All of these processes were quite straightforward. And then they analyze your blood or saliva. And then after a few days or weeks, they send you the results online. And I love the general idea that I don't have to go to a lab locally. Especially when there is no service providing, for example, microbiome testing in my local healthcare system.

So even though I could collect a sample locally, there is no company or service I could use to get my microbiome analyzed, but there was a company in California. They send me a sampling tube, I send back my fecal sample, they analyzed it and send me the genomic results of my microbiome tests. So, with a nutritionist locally, I could discuss what kind of dietary changes I should implement into my lifestyle based on the microbiome I'm living with every day.

And I think the general idea is that not in all cases, but in many cases, these at-home lab tests are just as good as any lab test you can have in a laboratory. And last year I had this prediction - I always make predictions for a year ahead about the major events I'm looking forward to, this was one of them.

And at that time, of course, I had no idea that the pandemic was coming and because of the pandemic, at-home lab tests now have a golden age. And I think it was the pandemic that meant the final push for this technology to become mainstream. Because now, even not going to a laboratory means less exposure to the infection. It means you don't put more pressure on the healthcare system already, but just by yourself at home, you can provide the sample that is needed for a test. You can send it back, and then they tell you the results that you can discuss with your medical professional. Everything is happening remotely. The lab test, most of these labs are performing at a high quality because they are cross-checked and tested by major regulatory organizations.

So I think it's a jackpot, it's a win-win-win situation. It's a win for the healthcare system because I'm not putting more pressure on them. It's a win for me because I don't have to go to a lab to provide a sample that I can provide myself, and it's a win for a company because it means business for them.

So it's a win-win-win situation.

Don MacPherson: Yeah, that's really exciting. And it sounds like you don't suffer any compromise. You don't compromise any quality in the process or very little quality in the process. Is that accurate?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: I mean, that should be the case. Usually, I sound very optimistic because I had a chance to be optimistic.

Don MacPherson: You're a very optimistic guy!

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: I appreciate that.

I'm a techno-optimist. But these companies reach out to me. So I have the luxury of choosing the ones I find the most reliable. But when you are a patient looking for a microbiome testing company, it's going to be a struggle to find out yourself whether that company is reliable enough, whether the way the laboratory works is compliant with major country laws.

Therefore, still weed out your medical professional. Even though these at-home lab tests are available, it's easy to feel doomed and lost in this jungle of health and digital information. That's why, again, it's a cultural transformation. I think it's more important that you raise the issue that you want to have a microbiome testing service via your medical professionals, and you try to find a good service together, even if your physician has no background or experience with using such services, but you do it together. I think it's more beneficial than if you have a chance to reach out to these services alone.

Don MacPherson: I think in January of 2020, you listed out the top 10 medical technologies for the future. And one of them is 3D printing of medications or just 3D printing. And I'm wondering where we are with the ability to 3D print medications? When will that become a reality for the masses, as opposed to just a handful of people?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: This is one of those technologies that whenever I come across examples like that, or I see this in action, I always feel like I meet science fiction right there.

But there are companies working on 3D printing medications, like the UK based company called FabRx. I think they are at the forefront of innovation in this. And then when I talk to them, I always ask the question. Well, it sounds great that for some certain medical conditions like kids taking their medications, you can print out the same medications in an octopus shape or Super Mario shape, and it means that kids want the take the medication. So, the compliance gets higher and it's beneficial for everyone. I understand that. But when does it come to the patient's bedside? When does it get implemented into medical care? What is the limitation of what you can print out?

And I'm always being told by the company that literally they see scientifically that everything, any kind of medication, even biological therapies, which are very expensive therapies used in immune conditions, can be printed out with the 3D printers that they have been developing. So, while I see no technological barrier, I still see a kind of rejection from the medical community because of the doubts they have, whether this technology is viable enough. And I still don't see this being used in action, except for one where I think the United States food and drug administration approved the medication for treating epilepsy.

And that medication was 3D printed because in that way it was being 3d printed, it can dissolve under the tongue in seconds. And that's what you need during an epileptic seizure. I think that's the only example I know about, which is approved by a major regulatory organization and is still using a 3D printing based technology. So, the technology is there. I don't see any theoretical barriers anymore, but it's still not in action, verified.

Don MacPherson: What does mental health care look like in 10 years?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: You might think that even because of the pandemic, there are great remote care services. So, we can now reach out using these technologies and digital channels to even more patients dealing with mental health issues. So, we can help even more people.

But discussing these issues through a digital channel is not really something that helps deal with mental health issues. I've seen how apps like Headspace and Calm have had the best year ever in 2020 because you know the number of downloads. But I don't see how talking to a psychologist or psychiatrist through a remote care service is the experience I'm looking for here.

Also, I love using games that can improve my cognitive health, but I still prefer playing football in person. I love the chance that I can make some notes about my mental health by using apps in the long-term. But I think a real meeting with my friends and having coffee together has a bigger benefit or impact on my mental health than making these notes on the apps.

So while technology is here to help with mental health issues, usually that's not the channel that we are looking for when it comes to trying to solve that problem for millions of patients.

Don MacPherson: It's fair. And it's honest, you know, you can't just wave a magic wand and think that these health technologies are going to be applicable in every healthcare space. So, I think it's a very fair assessment.

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: And we have to take now the pandemic into consideration that so many of us are at home, or even though there are no lockdowns, we still stay at home for obvious reasons. And I just now usually say that when you live in a swimming pool, you can always swim all day long. So, when we finish work and, you actually don't finish, you stop working, then I have my hobbies on my computer too. I play chess, I meet my friends, all these things happen online.

So there are many areas or aspects of healthcare I have clear visions about for decades from now, but mental health is none of them. Simply because the changes are so enormous right now that are happening in mental health. And I'm talking about these changes for the worse. I can't even imagine how we will deal with these issues, or maybe if we will have more mental health issues, than issues about general chronic conditions because of the pandemic. And because of the impact the pandemic is having on this generation even in the coming years or so.

Don MacPherson: I serve on the board of an organization called Harmony Foundation. It's a drug and alcohol addiction facility. What sorts of impact do you think digital health technologies will have on the drug and alcohol addiction field?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: We have been checking many apps and services, but the only examples that really seemed to me like something that might be useful are two folds. One is about virtual reality. Where I've seen amazing studies showing that if you just give a VR device, a VR headset to a patient dealing with a sort of addiction, and maybe you show them what their life might look like in five years, keeping up with the same routines and habits they have today, nothing happens. But when their mental health advocate or their medical professional acts as a coach in this process while using the VR headset - so again, the doctor patient-relationship is in the focus, not the use of that technology - then a miracle happens.

I've been also quite supportive of those applications that try to make us see the world in a way we would see by keeping the same lifestyle, like 10 years from now. I've seen that in vision issues for patients dealing with addiction. That if they keep on having the same addiction their vision might change this or that. And they showed it to the patient by allowing them to look through a camera of a smartphone with an app running about this, and they could see the view of where they're seeing right now, but through the lens of that patient 10 years from now keeping the same habits and same addiction.

These might be good pushes forward. But I haven't seen medical treatments when it comes to technology because it's simply maybe that the solution for addiction doesn't lie in technology. It lies in the doctor-patient relationship.

Don MacPherson: We are using VR with some of our clients at Harmony Foundation. And I think it does have really incredible potential. And I know Cedar Sinai has experimented with VR, using it for pain reduction and as a kind of distraction for people so they don't request pain medication. And I think they've seen the response dropping by about 25% of how frequently people want pain medications. So, I do see applications there.

I have just two more questions for you. The first is you said you make predictions every year about healthcare and what might happen in the next year. So, what predictions will you be making for 2021?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: I don't make predictions per se, because I don't think that there is a timeline and my job as a futurist is not to tell you that in six months this or that will happen, because that's not how it works.

I think what the futurists do is we find out the desired visions for the future of healthcare. In my case, and my real job is to find out the gaps between what we might need to do between what we have today and how we can make that desired vision come true. So, I'm looking more at trends that might make those visions come true. And of course, now the pandemic has shifted our attention to certain technologies from at-home lab tests to health sensors used for clinical purposes, not just for the fun notion that I can count the number of steps I take a day. No one cares about that anymore.

I want ECG in my smartwatch. I want to have the chance to get early warning signs about potential medical issues later on. Our attention has been shifted towards artificial intelligence being used for public health purposes. Notably finding out when the next outbreak can happen and how those can take place. Using Artificial Intelligence for analyzing the data, we can measure with the devices we already own from smartphones to fitness trackers and simple handheld devices. Our attention has been shifted towards AI being used for logistics, like what you've seen in Germany in the last couple of months, how they have used AI to deal with supply issues and to organize the supply chain for the vaccine rollout.

I guess these are the five topics I'm the most interested in. But in general, I think what we will focus on the most in 2021 is to find out how we can make this cultural transformation take place a bit faster than expected. Because as I mentioned, the technological changes took place in weeks and usually cultural transformations take years, if not decades. And, and now my biggest fear is that the science fiction that I had been talking about for so long, just became real, but the cultural changes are missing. And it might lead to a disaster where you can indeed reach other technologies and use them for your care, but there is no chance or time for building empathy, trust, and real patient-doctor relationships, which I think have been, are, and will always be at the core of practicing medicine.

Don MacPherson: My last question for you, and you can just answer yes or no... but I read Sapiens recently by Yuval Noah Harari. You might've read it. And the question is about amortality. Can you imagine a future when humans are amoral not living forever, but maybe managing diseases indefinitely and ending the aging process?

What is your thought on that? Because I'm an optimist too, and I actually can see this now. Maybe not in my lifetime, but maybe in a hundred years or 200 years. What do you think?

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: From the age of six, I've read too many science fiction books.

Don MacPherson: You're an Arthur C. Clark fan, I know!

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Yes, Arthur C. Clark and Stanislav Lam are my two favorites. I see you didn't mention a timeline. Of course, I think theoretically at some point, it must be possible that we can understand mostly how the brain works. And we might be able to save consciousness or load consciousness to a technological place, but it's so far away in the future that I have no fears of saying out loud it's in the future, of course, it's possible because I'm pretty sure I won't live by then. Even though I do a lot. I spent a lot of time, and effort, and money to try to live a long and healthy life. And I'm shooting for at least a hundred here, even though it just having a chance for that. But I don't think I will experience that in my lifetime.

Don MacPherson: Fair enough. Dr. Meskó, this has been a phenomenal conversation. I appreciate your time. Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us and thank you for being a genius.

Dr. Bertalan Meskó: Thank you so much for having me, really. I've really enjoyed the whole discussion. Thank you.

Don MacPherson: Thank you for listening to 12 Geniuses and thank you to our sponsor, the think2perform Research Institute. In the next episode, we'll explore the future of education. Our guest is Justin Reich, director of MIT's teaching systems lab. Justin is also the author of Failure to Disrupt: Why Technology Alone Can't Transform Education. That episode will be available on January 26th, 2021.

Thank you to our producer, Devon McGrath, and our research and historical consultant, Brian Bierbaum. If you love this podcast, please let us know by subscribing and leaving us a review on iTunes or your favorite podcast app. Thanks for listening, and thank you for being a genius.

[END]