Rare earth minerals are mostly sourced from China. Can we get them here?
Rare earth minerals are mostly sourced from China. Can we get them here? | The Excerpt
On a special episode (first released on May 28, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: We need rare earth minerals for use in items we rely on for modern life. New tech holds possibilities for mining at home for them. Scott McWhorter, a distinguished fellow in the Strategic Energy Institute at Georgia Institute of Technology, joins The Excerpt to dive into the details.
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Dana Taylor:
Hello and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, May 28th, 2025. And this is a special episode of The Excerpt. Most electronic devices you use, your phone, laptop, earbuds to name a few, require certain materials called rare earth minerals to function. These minerals also power a wide range of other things critical to our lives like cars, aircraft engines, medical equipment. The US imports most of its supply of rare earth elements from China, which given the current climate of global trade, has led experts to wonder, any way we get more of these minerals here at home? We're diving into the question today with Scott McWhorter, a distinguished fellow in the Strategic Energy Institute at Georgia Institute of Technology. Thanks for joining me on The Excerpt, Scott.
Scott McWhorter:
Thank you, Dana. Glad to be here.
Dana Taylor:
Can we start by explaining to those of us who aren't familiar, what are rare earth minerals and why are they so important in modern life?
Scott McWhorter:
Rare earth minerals are just a group of minerals that are naturally found, but they have certain properties, typically magnetic properties or strength to performance properties, that really enhance what we do in certain products. That's really the importance of these minerals that we find every day.
Rare earth minerals are mostly sourced from China. Can we get them in the US?
We need rare earth minerals for use in items we rely on for modern life. New tech holds possibilities for mining at home for them.
Dana Taylor:
They're called rare earth minerals. Are they in fact rare?
Scott McWhorter:
That's a misnomer. They're found just about in most soils that we have. They're not found in places that we can go dig up and extract and so that's why they're typically rare.
Dana Taylor:
Scott, where in the country have we started mining rare earth minerals? And generally, can you tell us more about the process being utilized?
Scott McWhorter:
Yeah. So in the US for rare earths in particular, there's two places. There's Mountain Pass in California and that's the main source of rare earths in the US. Now, the rare earths that are extracted there are light rare earths, but all of those are taken out, they're extracted. Some are pre-processed there in California and then they're shipped to Asia for further processing in other countries. Because we typically don't have that middle processing, the acid leaching and means of extracting and purifying those rare earth metals in this country because of some of the environmental regulations due to the old processing techniques. The other place that we find rare earth or we're mining rare earths today is in Georgia and in my backyard. So where we find a lot of sand mining that occurs and they're looking for zinc and titanium and things of that nature. But they have rare earths that are byproducts of that process and those aren't processed here in the US.
Dana Taylor:
Are there approaches that minimize financial and environmental costs or harm? How is that being explored?
Scott McWhorter:
There are several companies that have come up with ways to use what I would call more elegant processing that we don't typically associate with mining. And we should think of mining as elegant separations. It's a very complex problem with several metals that are very much alike chemically, so they're hard or difficult to separate. So what we've learned over time is that we can use technologies that really were developed that came out of things like genomics or proteomics. When we think of those technologies, we think, wow, that's really elegant, clean separations. But we can use proteins actually to bind to those metals very specifically and separate those out based on precipitation or other methodologies. And then we've learned how to really control the precipitation of these minerals in aqueous solutions. So we don't have to use acid or strong acids to really drive the dissolution of these metals from these crystals any longer. So there are technologies, they're in the research phase, some are in the piloting stage, but we should see those come online in the next one to two years.
Dana Taylor:
What are some of the biggest barriers to expanding these efforts across the country?
Scott McWhorter:
The largest barrier is funding, attracting funding to this industry when you don't have stable markets. The pricing markets are typically controlled by China. China has invested in that middle processing for the last 40, 50 years and that's where it's mostly done in China. And so it is government-backed, they can control and they can manipulate the pricing to really control that market. So I think from a policy standpoint, we can stabilize that market, create a stable base price for these minerals so that the investment community understands what they're investing into and the profit that they could potentially make, and that it will not go below that point. That will really spawn tremendous investment in that market domain when we can control those prices or we have some barrier or floor on those prices.
Dana Taylor:
As we mentioned, China supplies a lot of what's mined globally, with the US importing 70% of its annual needs. With trade talks between our two nations uncertain and global supply side issues always at risk, is this perhaps an opportunity to invest in domestic mining and processing?
Scott McWhorter:
I truly believe it is. The US is really set in the technology domain to have a renaissance in mining. And when I say a renaissance, it is that middle processing that we need. As I mentioned, all the resources that are out there from in my backyard, in Georgia, there's kaolin mining. We mine millions of tons of kaolin and there's tons and tons of kaolin mine tailings that are on the ground. So we're set to process that, we can get that going at the drop of a hat, permits are already there, we don't need to re-permit these. The technologies need to be scaled and tested, we need government investment, we need private investment. But those are the ways we stabilize our economy because we are a mineral-based economy now, we have shifted to that from solely a fossil-based economy. So we're really going to have to think differently and invest in mining.
Dana Taylor:
Scott, I understand there are vast stores of these minerals under the ocean floor. What's the potential for us there?
Scott McWhorter:
It's rich in minerals. The infrastructure required and the access is going to take a lot of investment. And the permitting and regulatory aspects of that are going to be difficult. I would say there's going to be lots of disturbances. So I would say that's a long-term solution, but it could be a viable option.
Dana Taylor:
I'm going to circle back to this. What's on the horizon in terms of new technology for finding, mining or processing these materials?
Scott McWhorter:
We can use AI and machine learning to really expedite that process and pinpoint where we need to go. So it lowers the burden on drilling and getting into certain areas. That could be where in the past we might've harmed more of the environment, now we can pinpoint and go in and mine in certain areas. In terms of understanding where we are in drilling, there are sensors and AI and machine learning that go into that as well as you're drilling that tell you, are you drilling in the right location? Are you moving throughout there? So data, AI, machine learning will lower that cost and speed up the process for those aspects.
Dana Taylor:
What's next for you and your team? What are you most excited about?
Scott McWhorter:
We've pulled together a large group in Georgia and there's a lot of excitement from the mining community to the end-use community because we have to have all parties to create that supply chain. So we're very interested in demonstrating how we in Georgia could create this model for the US of how to use those waste resources to stabilize the innovation market. So how we can supply these materials, these minerals for magnets, for EVs to support all of those different energy markets today that are going to be required for the next generation of markets that we see from data centers and such that are coming online.
So we're going to need all of these different materials to do that. But first it starts with a supply chain, identifying the feedstock components, the mining and all the distribution and processing in between. But then connected, you've got to have those end-use agreements. Who's going to buy those materials? And who's going to use those materials? So you really have to do that to create that market demand. And that's what we're really interested in is creating that middle processing and demonstrating those technologies, but then creating that whole end-to-end supply chain.
Dana Taylor:
Thank you, Scott. It was good to have you on The Excerpt.
Scott McWhorter:
Thank you, Dana.
Dana Taylor:
Thanks to our senior producer Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@usatoday.com. Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
White House blames 'formatting' for errors in RFK Jr.'s MAHA report. Authors push back.
Citation errors and phantom research used as scientific evidence to bolster Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s landmark 'Make America Healthy Again' commission report were apparently due to 'formatting issues,' according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. President Donald Trump signed an executive order to establish a commission that was tasked with investigating chronic illnesses and childhood diseases, which culminated in the 'Make Our Children Healthy Again' assessment that was published May 22. However, researchers listed in the report have since come forward saying the articles cited don't exist or were used to support facts that were inconsistent with their research. The errors were first reported by NOTUS. 'I understand there were some formatting issues with the MAHA report that are being addressed and the report will be updated,' Leavitt told reporters May 29. 'But it does not negate the substance of the report.' She also didn't say whether the report was generated by artificial intelligence, or AI, as some have questioned. Although it's difficult to determine whether scientific articles are generated or 'touched up' by AI, there are telling signs, said Yuan Luo, professor and chief AI officer at Northwestern University's clinical and translational sciences institute. Some of those signs may include citation gaps, factual inconsistencies and irrelevant conclusions derived from random research. MAHA report: RFK slams processed foods, pesticides, vaccines as harmful to kids The MAHA report erroneously said an article on the impact of light from computer monitors was published in the journal Pediatrics when it wasn't, according to the study's author Mariana Figueiro, a professor at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai. The report also cited Figueiro's research as evidence that electronic devices in children's bedrooms disrupted sleep onset. However, she said the study was on college students and researchers measured melatonin suppression, not sleep. 'The study is ours, but unfortunately, the conclusions in the report are not accurate and the journal reference is incorrect,' Figueiro told USA TODAY via email. 'We have other papers on the topic… but again, none of them were performed with children.' The MAHA report also cited Columbia University epidemiologist Katherine Keyes as first author of a study on anxiety in adolescents. As first reported by NOTUS and confirmed by USA TODAY, Keyes said she did not write the paper cited by the MAHA report. 'I was surprised to see what seems to be an error in the citation of my work in the report, and it does make me concerned given that citation practices are an important part of conducting and reporting rigorous science,' Keyes told USA TODAY via email. Keyes has studied the topic and published a recent study in JAMA Network Open that adolescent girls had higher levels of depressive symptoms than boys, but her study's figures did not match what the MAHA report cited. She said her earlier research on depression and anxiety symptoms yielded results 'that are generally in the ballpark of the MAHA report, although I'm not sure where their exact ranges are drawn from.' Keyes said she would be happy to send information to the MAHA committee to correct the report, but she doesn't know where to reach the report's authors. Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, a site that tracks retractions in scientific journals and research, said the MAHA report seemed to share characteristics similar to other AI-generated work. AI papers 'tend to hallucinate references,' he said. 'They come up with references that share a lot of words and authors and even journals, journal names, but they're not real." HHS spokesman Andrew Nixon said the report has been updated to correct "minor citation and formatting errors." "But the substance of the MAHA report remains the same - a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic disease epidemic afflicting our nation's children," he said. "Under President Trump and Secretary Kennedy, our federal government is no longer ignoring this crisis, and it's time for the media to also focus on what matters." Oransky noted the MAHA report comes as Kennedy said he may prohibit government scientists from publishing research in major peer-reviewed medical journals such as JAMA, Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine 'because they're all corrupt.' Kennedy proposed an HHS publication where government scientists could publish research findings. "When scientific reform is weaponized to only denigrate science and scientists whose studies contradict your beliefs or your wishes, we get to a very dark place,' Oransky said. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: RFK Jr.'s MAHA report errors: Was it AI or 'formatting issues?'
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Yahoo
RFK Jr.'s error-filled MAHA report sparks speculation it was written by AI
Last week, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. proudly boasted about the findings of a 73-page report from the Presidential Commission to Make America Healthy Again that took what was supposed to be an unvarnished look at the health of the nation's children. 'We will end the childhood chronic disease crisis by attacking its root causes head-on—not just managing its symptoms,' Kennedy said in a statement. 'We will follow the truth wherever it leads, uphold rigorous science, and drive bold policies that put the health, development, and future of every child first,' he continued. 'I'm grateful to President [Donald] Trump for his leadership—and for trusting me to lead this fight to root out corruption, restore scientific integrity, and reclaim the health of our children.' But new reporting suggests that the document misinterprets some of the studies that underpin it, and cites others that don't even exist, the authors told NOTUS, a nonprofit news website that covers national politics and government. For instance, epidemiologist Katherien Keyes is listed in the report as the first author of a study on how anxiety affects adolescents. When NOTUS contacted her for comment, she was 'surprised' to hear about the citation, the website reported. Whiley Keyes does study mental health and substance use, she didn't write the paper, according to NOTUS. 'The paper cited is not a real paper that I or my colleagues were involved with,' Keyes told NOTUS via email. 'We've certainly done research on this topic, but did not publish a paper in JAMA Pediatrics on this topic with that co-author group, or with that title.' Separate reporting by USA TODAY found that the report had misinterpreted a cited article written by Mariana Figueiro, a professor at Mount Sinai's Icahn School of Medicine. The government's report had cited Figuerio's study as evidence of the harmful effects that electronic devices can have on children's sleep, NYMag's Intelligencer reported. But according to Figueiro herself, the study had focused on college students. And it measured 'melatonin suppression,' according to USA TODAY. 'The study is ours, but unfortunately, the conclusions in the report are not accurate and the journal reference is incorrect,' Figueiro told USA TODAY in an email. 'We have other papers on the topic… but again, none of them were performed with children.' During a Thursday news conference, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reportedly downplayed NOTUS's findings on the MAHA report and stood behind it. Still, The New York Times reported that the original version of the report had been taken down and replaced with an updated one, according to NYMag's Intelligencer. The pratfalls, in turn, sparked speculation that RFK Jr.'s team at HHS had used AI to compile the document. New York University expert Ivan Oransky told the Times that he couldn't say for sure that AI had been used for the report, but it did remind him of instances where it had been employed elsewhere. 'We've seen this particular movie before, and it's unfortunately much more common in scientific literature than people would like or than really it should be,' he told the newspaper. Leavitt punted to RFK Jr. when she was asked whether AI had been used to compile the report. 'I can't speak to that,' she said, according to NYMag. Supreme Court lets Trump admin. strip protections for people from 4 countries Tainted by state's drug lab scandal, seized property hangs in balance as US high court weighs taking up case Why the fight over foreign students at Harvard has some US students leaving, too The piece of the Mass. budget that passes all understanding | John L. Micek Quincy residents sue mayor over controversial statues for new public safety building Read the original article on MassLive.


USA Today
3 days ago
- USA Today
A potential new treatment for Parkinson's shows early promise
A potential new treatment for Parkinson's shows early promise | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on May 29, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: Parkinson's is a disease that afflicts an estimated 90,000 Americans every year. Dr. Lorenz Studer and Dr. Viviane Tabar of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, joined USA TODAY The Excerpt to share more about a new stem cell-based therapy that creates nerve cells. The treatment is showing early promise. Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Karen Weintraub: Hello, and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm USA TODAY Health Reporter Karen Weintraub. Today is Thursday, May 29th, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. You've no doubt heard of the chemical dopamine. It's often referenced as part of the brain's reward system when we do something pleasurable. Dopamine, or a lack thereof, also plays a critical role in the onset of Parkinson's, a disease that afflicts an estimated 90,000 Americans every year. Treatment for Parkinson's focuses on managing its many symptoms, as there is no cure. But a new stem cell therapy developed at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center for advanced Parkinson's is showing early promise. What's behind this incredible discovery and just how hopeful should patients be? Here to talk about this exciting new treatment and its impact on patients are the two physicians who helped make it a reality. Dr. Viviane Tabar and Dr. Lorenz Studer. Drs. Tabar and Studer, thanks so much for joining The Excerpt. Dr. Tabar, when someone is diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, what exactly is happening to their brain and their body? Dr. Viviane Tabar: Well, we think that at the time an individual is diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, they have already experienced degeneration or loss of a large number of their dopamine neurons. We are all born with a limited number of large, beautiful dopamine neurons that live in our brainstem and that project to multiple areas in the brain. They're involved in a lot of intricate activities, but an important element of their function is to modulate movement. So the individual very commonly will come to clinical attention because of movement difficulties, albeit there are other symptoms, loss of smell, gastrointestinal symptoms, difficulties with sleep, and it's a complex picture. But it's important to remember that at the time they receive this diagnosis, which today is still vastly made on a clinical basis, on an examination of the individual and listening to their symptoms, they have already lost probably 50% or more of their dopamine neurons and their projections. A potential new treatment for Parkinson's shows early promise A new stem cell-based therapy creates cells that make dopamine, a chemical that's critical to the disease. Karen Weintraub: And what are some of the everyday challenges your patients face? You mentioned motor control, cognitive issues also I think? Dr. Viviane Tabar: For the majority of patients, and keep in mind that Parkinson's is a disease that spans a variety of symptoms and spectrum of progression and intensity, for most patients it starts with manageable symptoms that they control well, could be a tremor, could be some stiffness in their gait. And for the majority, I would say cognitive change comes late, assuming a proper diagnosis of Parkinson's. So it becomes paradoxically even more problematic because it starts interfering with activities of daily living, your ability to get to and from your job. You're still high-performing, but you are impaired gradually. And you're fully cognitively there often, and so you're very aware of the slow degeneration that's essentially relentless. Karen Weintraub: And you mentioned jobs. Are people affected by Parkinson's primarily older, retiree age, or are there other groups at risk as well? Dr. Viviane Tabar: We didn't say necessarily retirees. Parkinson's, the sporadic form of it, which is the most common form, I mean by that the form that's not inherited, that happens commonly in the sixties or later. But nowadays, people in their fifties and sixties are considered at their prime still at work. Karen Weintraub: And others who are affected, we think of Michael J. Fox who is certainly younger when he started developing symptoms. Dr. Viviane Tabar: There are forms of Parkinson's that occur in a younger individual at a younger average age, and that is commonly related to specific mutations. And so the majority of Parkinson's disease occurs what we call sporadically, so without a hereditary or identified specific mutation that we are aware of. But some is related to a mutation, and those tend to occur at a younger age, but that's not the majority. Karen Weintraub: And is it clear what causes Parkinson's? You mentioned the neurons, but is there still some mystery there, and can the causes vary from person to person? Dr. Viviane Tabar: There is a lot of mystery. So in simple terms, we do not know the etiology of Parkinson's disease very specifically. Many things have been invoked, the environment, environmental toxins, a genetic predisposition outside of the genetic forms of the disease. And we can talk a lot about some exciting science trying to dissect what's going on, the role of inflammation, et cetera. But the short answer to your question is we're not able today to tell a patient what caused their Parkinson's, again, outside the relatively uncommon hereditary forms. Karen Weintraub: And can you walk us a little bit through how Parkinson's progresses over time? Is there a sort of a path, many paths, what does that look like? Dr. Viviane Tabar: So yes, there are many paths, but let's take an average situation. The patient would reach out to a physician, eventually come to the attention of a neurologist, they're examined, their brain scan is obtained. In the case of Parkinson's, often that scan is fine and normal to age and the symptoms are identified often, as we said earlier, motor symptoms. The common situation is that they get started on a form of dopamine that can reach the brain, and that makes them feel better and that is often referred to as the honeymoon period. And that goes on for a few years where the patient is almost back to normal but dependent on the medicine. And as time goes by, the disease process is such that they are losing more and more of their dopamine neurons. And at some point we start or the treating neurologist starts escalating the dose of the medication. And there are other medications that can support that. But essentially within a few years or several years depending, they reach a point where they're starting to experience side effects from the medication and a shortening of the periods where they are feeling okay and functioning. And that is where we start getting stuck in that there are no new medications that, I shouldn't say no new medications, there's always new medications, no formulations that try to extend the ability to help the individual. But you clearly plateau in terms of the effectiveness of pharmacological therapy for a lot of patients, not all. There are options that are surgical like inserting electrodes that is called deep brain stimulation, which will work for some patients. But we reach a point where the patient has lost most of their dopaminergic neurons and there is not much more that can be offered today to help the individual. Hence, the idea of what if we could replace those degenerated dopamine neurons? Karen Weintraub: Which brings us to Dr. Studer. Dr. Studer, when did you first think about using stem cells as a possible way to treat Parkinson's? Dr. Lorenz Studer: Well, it's really a very long story. In fact, it's I think nearly three decades when we first had the idea of doing so, which was the question, "Now, can we really replace cells in the brain and what will be the right source?" In fact, that was the goal of my laboratory starting 25 years ago, finding exactly what's the source of dopamine neurons. The challenge is how do you make this very, very specific nerve cell in the brain? And so that was a long journey, took us at least 10 years of basic research to understand, now what is the code of development? It's a little bit like trying to go through the steps that the cells go in normal development, but give them those signals one by one in a culture dish. And so it's a little bit like a code that we need to decipher and then to apply to the cells. And by 2011, we could do that finally in a study that showed that we did a good job because when we implant those cells back into a mouse, in a rat or in a monkey model of Parkinson's disease, we see benefit in that model. And that really then opened up the whole next new step, now can we do that not just in a animal model, but maybe eventually in humans? That was what they call the proof of concept. But then obviously it was not a long journey to get to the ultimate clinical patient. Karen Weintraub: And how might the stem cell therapies transform the treatment landscape? What opportunities does this offer? And are there specific symptoms that you expect to get better or everything or certain symptoms? Dr. Lorenz Studer: The dopamine acts primarily on the movement-related symptoms. That's the area where we think we can make the biggest impact. Whether it's also going to affect all the symptoms, it's more questionable. Now, for example, again, we said the patients can have loss of smell, they can have problems with severe constipation, and at later stage of the disease, cognitive issues. And at this point we don't have a good reason to believe that this therapy will also help with those symptoms. This has to be tested. It could be indirect effects, but the main effect we expect is that the movement disorder should improve. Again, we don't want to overstate it, but in a dream scenario, it would be you have still Parkinson's disease, so you cannot cure Parkinson's disease, but maybe if it worked, ideally you could cure the movement disorder component of Parkinson's disease. And so I think that's really what we are trying to develop with this type of cell therapy. And maybe in the future this will open up the same approach for all the cell types that might affect all the symptoms as well. So it's also kind of opening up the door to many other cell therapies in Parkinson's itself and maybe in other diseases as well, because it's one of the first cases now where really you actually replacing nerve cells in the brain, which sounds like a little bit of a science fiction approach. But I think this is one of the first examples where we really tried to attempt that and hopefully opening the door now for applications in the future. Karen Weintraub: And you said we can't call this a cure, obviously it's early days, but what would it take to get to a cure? More cell types? Dr. Lorenz Studer: Yeah. I think, because again, Parkinson's has more than just a movement disorder. So all that's not just movement-related, there is late stages cognitive problems, gastrointestinal problems, sleep problems, and those are unlikely to be treated with this cell type. So what you can envisage is yes, well, maybe you would have additional cell types that can attack that, or ideally, you brought that up now, what causes Parkinson's disease, it'll be a complementary approach where you would give the cells back, because many dopamine cells are already lost by the time you're diagnosed. So you get that movement-related symptoms hopefully restored, but at the same time, you'll find, like the whole field, many thousands researchers try to do that, find a therapy that can slow down or stop the progression. So you would gain back the function that you've already lost, but you would maybe not get some of those later symptoms. That would be even bigger dream in the future. Karen Weintraub: I was going to ask, Dr. Studer, where the research goes from here? Dr. Lorenz Studer: We always talk about bench to bedside, but there's also a bedside to bench. So where you kind of try to figure out, so what could you do even better now with regard to the cells that they function maybe more quickly or they are more potent or they have some additional features like we discussed? How could it treat some of the other symptoms in the future? So I think that's a big area for Parkinson's disease itself. How can we get the most benefit out of this kind of an approach? But then the other part is really there's so many other very severe diseases now. We talk about Alzheimer's disease, we talk about ELS and other disorders. Each of them might need a different approach, quite different. So in some case we don't think we can just replace nerve cells, but we still learn that maybe other approaches could be used in those specific disorders. And it then gives us a lot of encouragement when we see some progress in one area that this might be not just kind of a one-time go, but we might have opportunities to now give some help to those very difficult to treat neurodegenerative disorders where even today, this has been kind of some of the value of this for many of the drugs. Now, very, very few new drugs came up in the context of neurodegenerative disorders, and I don't think cell therapy is alone going to solve all of that, but it's yet the new tool that is becoming actually clinically a realistic option to replace cells, and I think that's quite exciting. There's some examples, for example, for treating eye disorders, so-called people who get blindness, macular degeneration, where data look quite promising. There's some examples maybe in very severe seizures where [inaudible 00:12:35] could be useful. So I think this is one of the very, very first example now where we now go all the way to this phase three study, but in the lab now we are thinking, "What did we learn? Why did it take us 25 years, for example? How can you make it quicker and what would be some of the next targets?" Because from the stem cell side, we learned a lot. So by now we can pretty much make any cell type of the brain. So that's a language to make this as no longer limiting. What's limiting is now to know what's really needed in each individual patient, which is going to be quite distinct and will take, again, a couple of years, but pretty confident not another 25-year step. Karen Weintraub: Well, we will stay tuned for that very exciting work. Thank you both so much for being on The Excerpt. Dr. Lorenz Studer: Thanks so much. Dr. Viviane Tabar: Thank you for having us. Karen Weintraub: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan, for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm USA TODAY Health Reporter Karen Weintraub. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.