FightAging!
1-31-16
The SENS Research Foundation seeks to bring an end to aging and age-related disease, and to speed progress towards this goal carries out both research and advocacy. As a part of the outreach conducted by the staff and volunteers, co-founder Aubrey de Grey travels much of the world to give frequent presentations on the SENS approach to rejuvenation research to audiences of all sorts: life scientists, economists, actuaries, students, venture capitalists, advocacy groups, technology convention attendees, TED audiences, and so on. You can find many of these uploaded to YouTube, but there are just as many more that were not recorded at the time. De Grey has been doing this since the turn of the century, and as the opinions of researchers and those who listen to researchers have swayed towards support for treating the causes of aging to extend healthy life spans, the reception in the media has impro ved greatly. At some point in the last decade, it went from being possible to ridicule any sort of serious longevity science without repercussion to looking like a fool for doing so.
It is well worth noting that little has changed in the underlying science relating to SENS over that time, other than the ongoing progress towards its realization: the list of cell and tissue damage remains much the same, and a person familiar with the topic should have a similar expectation of ultimate success in the medical control of aging through therapies to repair damage whether in 2006 or 2016. What has changed greatly is opinion. There is probably a lesson there in how little consensus matters in comparison to truth and weight of evidence, and how little truth and weight of evidence matters to most people involved in propagating the consensus position. It is something to bear in mind, and it is always worth critically looking at your own beliefs to make sure that they are more than just the party line, for some party, somewhere. The consensus has a way of creeping in around the edges w hen you are not paying attention.
Today I ran across a couple of articles in the Florida local media resulting from a recent presentation given by Aubrey de Grey. I thought them noteworthy for treating this as just more medical science, something to be discussed respectfully. The times are changing, and as de Grey points out, the near future evolution of this process is one in which the lowest common denominator celebrities are presenting SENS viewpoints on aging and medicine in their own words on prime time television. Once the initial tipping point of about 10% support is reached in the matter of persuading the world to your view, the majority will come around to that view fairly rapidly thereafter. It is pleasing to see this happening.
Scientist envisions perpetual repair process for the human body
The British biomedical researcher Aubrey de Grey, in his quest to press the boundaries of the human lifespan to a point where they essentially no longer exist, often resorts to some provocative soundbites. Like: "Your chance of dying if you're 60 will be the same as your chance of dying if you're 30. That means that most people will live into four digits. Which sounds a bit scary. But get used to it, because it's going to happen." And: "In a worst-case scenario, we might end up having fewer kids than we would like, to make up for all these tedious people who were born a long time ago and haven't had the good grace to die yet." But he also wanted his multi-generational audience this week to understand that he is primarily interested in keeping people healthy.
He described what he called the "sweet spot" between current geriatric treatments that only postpone the deterioration that comes with time, and the elusive ideal of escaping those pathologies through exercise, diet and preventive medicine. He proposed a third approach, which is to repair at certain intervals all the damage that the human body sustains over time, simply by existing. "The idea is that you keep one step ahead of the problem," he said. At the age of 60 or 70, he added, people "will be rejuvenated so that they won't be biologically 60 again until they're chronologically 90."
De Grey referred to the societal implications of life extension as a "side effect" of these future medical technologies, and said he believes those questions are up to our descendants. If we refuse to pursue the possibilities, he added, "We would be condemning a cohort of descendants to the same sort of painful death that our ancestors experienced." After two decades in the field, de Grey believes that consensus in the scientific world is catching up to his own research. "Five years from now," he predicted, "Oprah Winfrey's going to be giving you what I'm telling you. And then you're going to believe it."
Gerontologist tells USF Sarasota-Manatee crowd 'aging' can be reversed
"Tonight I am going to talk about how we are moving forward with research that will lead, in the foreseeable future, to the development of medicines that can rejuvenate the body completely," de Grey said. "In other words, medicines that can repair the molecular and cellular damage the body does to itself in the course of life." Why aren't drug companies on this? "The reason why drug companies are not yet jumping all over this is the same reason they never jump on really early stage drugs," de Grey said. "Drug companies just don't do any drug development anymore in the early stages. We are going to see drug companies jumping on these coming drugs like you have never seen before. We are not going to see it until organizations like the S ENS Research Foundation have progressed far enough, however."
Kathy Black, a gerontologist and a professor at USF Sarasota-Manatee, and Paula Bickford, a professor in the department of neurosurgery and brain repair at USF Tampa, gave de Grey an A-plus for innovation and diaglogue-sparking enthusiasm. They downgraded the doctor on some predictions. "I also study aging, and a lot of the things he said about the causes of aging were right on," Bickford said. "I disagree on a few things. You can't just cure arteriosclerosis and everyone is going to live a thousand years. We would have to target all those key things that are changing with aging and I am not sure we are going to be there as soon as he thinks we are."
Black weighed in: "Throughout history the human lifespan has never exceeded about 120. That is the part that I think traditional gerontologists are struggling with. There's a maximum life span for all species, including humans and that's the part we are waiting to see, and we are not quite sure, but innovative thinking and science can take us to places we don't know. So, I don't want to be entirely pessimistic. But I guess I just want to be more cautious." The first 30 extra years don't bother Black and Bickford as much as the next 30 years later, up to 150, they said. "Throughout history that has never occurred," Black said. "That's the one piece we are stuck on but we are willing to travel this road and see." "He's right as far as the areas that need to be targeted," Bickford said. "I just think you would have to target all seven or nine at the same time and maybe even more for this to be pu t in practice to actually get that 30 years."
1-31-16
The SENS Research Foundation seeks to bring an end to aging and age-related disease, and to speed progress towards this goal carries out both research and advocacy. As a part of the outreach conducted by the staff and volunteers, co-founder Aubrey de Grey travels much of the world to give frequent presentations on the SENS approach to rejuvenation research to audiences of all sorts: life scientists, economists, actuaries, students, venture capitalists, advocacy groups, technology convention attendees, TED audiences, and so on. You can find many of these uploaded to YouTube, but there are just as many more that were not recorded at the time. De Grey has been doing this since the turn of the century, and as the opinions of researchers and those who listen to researchers have swayed towards support for treating the causes of aging to extend healthy life spans, the reception in the media has impro ved greatly. At some point in the last decade, it went from being possible to ridicule any sort of serious longevity science without repercussion to looking like a fool for doing so.
It is well worth noting that little has changed in the underlying science relating to SENS over that time, other than the ongoing progress towards its realization: the list of cell and tissue damage remains much the same, and a person familiar with the topic should have a similar expectation of ultimate success in the medical control of aging through therapies to repair damage whether in 2006 or 2016. What has changed greatly is opinion. There is probably a lesson there in how little consensus matters in comparison to truth and weight of evidence, and how little truth and weight of evidence matters to most people involved in propagating the consensus position. It is something to bear in mind, and it is always worth critically looking at your own beliefs to make sure that they are more than just the party line, for some party, somewhere. The consensus has a way of creeping in around the edges w hen you are not paying attention.
Today I ran across a couple of articles in the Florida local media resulting from a recent presentation given by Aubrey de Grey. I thought them noteworthy for treating this as just more medical science, something to be discussed respectfully. The times are changing, and as de Grey points out, the near future evolution of this process is one in which the lowest common denominator celebrities are presenting SENS viewpoints on aging and medicine in their own words on prime time television. Once the initial tipping point of about 10% support is reached in the matter of persuading the world to your view, the majority will come around to that view fairly rapidly thereafter. It is pleasing to see this happening.
Scientist envisions perpetual repair process for the human body
The British biomedical researcher Aubrey de Grey, in his quest to press the boundaries of the human lifespan to a point where they essentially no longer exist, often resorts to some provocative soundbites. Like: "Your chance of dying if you're 60 will be the same as your chance of dying if you're 30. That means that most people will live into four digits. Which sounds a bit scary. But get used to it, because it's going to happen." And: "In a worst-case scenario, we might end up having fewer kids than we would like, to make up for all these tedious people who were born a long time ago and haven't had the good grace to die yet." But he also wanted his multi-generational audience this week to understand that he is primarily interested in keeping people healthy.
He described what he called the "sweet spot" between current geriatric treatments that only postpone the deterioration that comes with time, and the elusive ideal of escaping those pathologies through exercise, diet and preventive medicine. He proposed a third approach, which is to repair at certain intervals all the damage that the human body sustains over time, simply by existing. "The idea is that you keep one step ahead of the problem," he said. At the age of 60 or 70, he added, people "will be rejuvenated so that they won't be biologically 60 again until they're chronologically 90."
De Grey referred to the societal implications of life extension as a "side effect" of these future medical technologies, and said he believes those questions are up to our descendants. If we refuse to pursue the possibilities, he added, "We would be condemning a cohort of descendants to the same sort of painful death that our ancestors experienced." After two decades in the field, de Grey believes that consensus in the scientific world is catching up to his own research. "Five years from now," he predicted, "Oprah Winfrey's going to be giving you what I'm telling you. And then you're going to believe it."
Gerontologist tells USF Sarasota-Manatee crowd 'aging' can be reversed
"Tonight I am going to talk about how we are moving forward with research that will lead, in the foreseeable future, to the development of medicines that can rejuvenate the body completely," de Grey said. "In other words, medicines that can repair the molecular and cellular damage the body does to itself in the course of life." Why aren't drug companies on this? "The reason why drug companies are not yet jumping all over this is the same reason they never jump on really early stage drugs," de Grey said. "Drug companies just don't do any drug development anymore in the early stages. We are going to see drug companies jumping on these coming drugs like you have never seen before. We are not going to see it until organizations like the S ENS Research Foundation have progressed far enough, however."
Kathy Black, a gerontologist and a professor at USF Sarasota-Manatee, and Paula Bickford, a professor in the department of neurosurgery and brain repair at USF Tampa, gave de Grey an A-plus for innovation and diaglogue-sparking enthusiasm. They downgraded the doctor on some predictions. "I also study aging, and a lot of the things he said about the causes of aging were right on," Bickford said. "I disagree on a few things. You can't just cure arteriosclerosis and everyone is going to live a thousand years. We would have to target all those key things that are changing with aging and I am not sure we are going to be there as soon as he thinks we are."
Black weighed in: "Throughout history the human lifespan has never exceeded about 120. That is the part that I think traditional gerontologists are struggling with. There's a maximum life span for all species, including humans and that's the part we are waiting to see, and we are not quite sure, but innovative thinking and science can take us to places we don't know. So, I don't want to be entirely pessimistic. But I guess I just want to be more cautious." The first 30 extra years don't bother Black and Bickford as much as the next 30 years later, up to 150, they said. "Throughout history that has never occurred," Black said. "That's the one piece we are stuck on but we are willing to travel this road and see." "He's right as far as the areas that need to be targeted," Bickford said. "I just think you would have to target all seven or nine at the same time and maybe even more for this to be pu t in practice to actually get that 30 years."