Good Discussion of the Promise & Hype of Anti-Aging Research

[Dean Pomerleau]

All,

 

I just read this interesting overview article about the current state of anti-aging research, including promising progress and quite a bit of hype and hyperbole. It discusses the difficulty of getting the NIH to focus on aging per se, rather than funding projects to develop band-aids for the diseases of aging. It also goes into the privately-funded initiatives like Calico and the Ellison Foundation trying to tackle the problem.

 

It points out that with both baby boomers in general, and dotcom entrepreneurs in particular, are reaching middle age and older. As a result there is and will continue to be more push for progress into defeating aging. But it appears it will be quite a while before any truly revolutionary breakthroughs - defeating aging will likely be a long slog. So statements like Aubrey made in 2004 that “I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already” are probably pretty unrealistic and unhelpful for bringing credibility for the effort. Thankfully I don't think Aubrey makes such bold statements anymore.

 

--Dean

 

[Michael R]

All:
 

it appears it will be quite a while before any truly revolutionary breakthroughs - defeating aging will likely be a long slog. So statements like Aubrey made in 2004 that “I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already” are probably pretty unrealistic and unhelpful for bringing credibility for the effort. Thankfully I don't think Aubrey makes such bold statements anymore.

 
Aubrey does continue to make that exact statement — with a range of caveats, which the media then and now generally elide. Here is a recent example of a more responsible article (from the member magazine of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries, unsurprisingly ;) )  which includes one of the qualifiers (my emphases):

 

 

De Grey readily admits that the likelihood of his research successfully extending his own lifetime is low. "I put it at 20-25 years from now when we have a 50-50 chance of getting to a decisive level of comprehensiveness that works, which I've called longevity escape velocity. If we do get there by then, I've got a fair chance of benefiting. But I have absolutely no doubt there's at least a 10% chance we won't get there for another 100 years because we hit new problems that we haven't thought of. So if I look at my own personal prospects, or the prospects of any other particular person, the timelines and uncertainty result in this all being very speculative."

 

The other key qualifier not included here is that the above numbers assume adequate funding, which was not then and is not yet forthcoming. This does not of course mean only a massive infusion of donations to SENS Research Foundation (although we're committed to doing the critical-path research that is least likely to be funded by others): investments in rejuvenation biotechnology by venture capital in startups, internal research by Big Pharma, and above all NIH and other public biomedical research institutes can also all play parts. What's key is the level of investment and the strategic focus on direct repair of the cellular and molecular damage of aging.

[Dean Pomerleau]

Thanks Michael,

 

Aubrey's latest phrasing (50-50 chance of reaching longevity escape velocity in 20-25 years presuming adequate funding) is in line with what I've heard him say elsewhere recently. While such a statement may be consistent with "I think the first person to live to 1,000 might be 60 already", it seems much less like hyperbole and attention-mongering to put it the way he talks now, which I'm glad to see.

 

The other key qualifier not included here is that the above numbers assume adequate funding, which was not then and is not yet forthcoming. 

 

Yes - that is a key qualifier. I meant to ask you about this privately at the conference but never got around to it - namely, how Aubrey's fundraising efforts are going for the SENS Foundation. I don't expect you can say much publicly, but from previous public statements it would seem Aubrey's inheritance that has been funding the majority of SENS research and outreach is likely to be running out in the next year or two. I really hope you folks can line up some big private donations and/or partnerships to keep the ball rolling. I really don't get why rich silicon valley billionaires aren't willing to throw a few 10's of million Aubrey's way. What else do they have to spend it on? They can't take it with them...

 

--Dean

[TomBAvoider]

Listen, if I was a billionaire, I'd totally pour all of it into longevity research - even though I honestly don't believe there's any chance - any at all - that substantial implementable progress will be made within the lifetime of anyone alive today (let alone us oldsters). I'd think of it as my moral duty to society and future generations. And I guess that very willingness precludes me from becoming a billionaire in the first place :) - so many worthy causes, so little time and money.

 

That said, while I roll my eyes at Aubrey's optimistic assertions, I can't blame him for making such public statements - after all, if you are hoping to raise money, it helps if you can dangle the prospect of a concrete personal benefit to the generous sponsor - not many would want to invest with the idea "and it'll be very helpful down the road, about 150 years from now". 

 

Really, the saddest aspect of all this is the abject abdication of the government role. Once upon a time it was understood that the government must step in with funding and support for the kind of basic research that doesn't appear to have any immediate economic payoff, not just because of the amounts of money required, but because of the very fact that without the prospects of profits within a reasonable time frame, private industry is simply not going to have either the incentive or resources necessary to devote to such a benefit entangled with the tragedy of the commons. That understanding of the role of government seems to have peaked in the 50's and 60's and disappeared by the 80's. Today you are not likely to see any project funded where the results would only come to fruition long after the relevant politicians have termed out of their careers. I'd say penny wise and pound foolish, except it's not even penny wise. What happened to thinking of future generations? Après nous le déluge. As long back as when I was a teenager I dreamed of what would've been possible to accomplish in medical and life extension studies had we given it the priorities and budget equal to the defence budget. Isn't DEATH worthy of being defended against and defeated or postponed? That's where a 'defence budget' should be - defending against that which will attack each and every one of us without exception. The priority is self-evident the moment you learn about the phenomenon of death, wouldn't your #1 priority be to postpone such a horrific and irreversible thing? Now, I can understand there not being much motivation if you are a farmer in the middle ages and medical science being on the level of "the four humors in the body", you don't think there's a realistic chance of anything happening no matter what you do, so why bother (except again: start now, so 100, 1000, 10,000 years from now humanity might benefit). But think what we could've accomplished if some appreciable fraction of the trillions of dollars we've been spending on explosives could've been devoted to the biosciences since the 50's and 60's. Who knows, maybe we'd even be within reach of everyone alive today having a shot at an extra 20, 30, 40 years. Personally, I think it can only be accomplished with gene therapy, but progress could've been made. I think society would've benefitted enormously along virtually every axis. Longer lifespans would give us a better long term horizon and societal incentives to take care of our environment and make for a better society; climate change wouldn't be an abstraction; we'd be more cautious about wars and destruction, given that with longer life prospects we'd have more to lose; wisdom and life experiences could accumulate for that much longer. So a lot of positives, IMHO. But, I don't want to veer too far into politics, so I'll leave it at that.  

[Sthira]

I guess I don't understand why it must cost so much money. Where does the money go? Is it not possible -- given tech advances -- to streamline a bit now. CRISPR/Cas9, for example, is relatively cheap. Nor do I get why AI isn't being used (and maybe it is) to untease the amazing complexity of the functioning human body?

 

Surely I'm just ignorant, but is SENS pursuing uses for AI in human biology? Or is this something cloaked and secretive and CALICO-driven?