The first two critiques really aren't worth discussing. The 3rd one is as it attempts to damn Aubrey to the lowest planes of intellectual hell and in my estimation takes a few 1/2 hearted jabs at the science though, as an armchair scientist, I'm not really qualified to comment on their success but here's where my thinking currently is at...
The pseudo science attack falls short. Any open minded person who reads Aubrey's website can see flaws in the presentation of the theories and he openly admits the website could use more polish in his pleas for more people to get engaged and help him move the ball forward. His predictions are bold beyond what most people would project, some of the analogies could use an upgrade and his smashmouth approach by criticizing fellow gerontologists is certainly unorthadox but he is clearly attempting to propose SENS as a scientific endeavor rather than selling snake oil or anti-aging medicine.
When challenged by an outsider, dismissing the challenger as simply playing pseudo science is a risky gamble and Estep & co clearly recognizes this as he spends a good deal of time setting up the definition of pseudo science and then attempts to cast SENS and Aubrey de Grey as fitting the definition. To the casual reader this tactic can be very effective and I suspect that the skeptics will spread this article throughout the blogsphere quickly as the strongest argument against SENS and the immortalist kooks that have rallied to his cause. Labelling it as pseudo science is risky because if you fail, you effectively legitimize the theories and theorist you are attempting to dismiss and significantly diminish your own stature in the process. Perhaps this is why so few from the scientific community have chose to attack SENS. But we're smart, we don't view things as black and white.
To most of us mere mortals who don't have years of biomolecular education, SENs appears to be credible science and has a following of both serious and qualified scientists as well as a fan club of immortalists prosyletizing the meme of longevity via engineering. For the latter group, the hope was that this challenge would provide more insight into what the most expedient path is to solving the issues related to aging. This was not accomplished by this first round of criticism. SENs was not exhonerated as the most prominent theory and solution to aging but nor was it ground into pseudo-science piecemeal which means that by default it merits continued learned debate.
Conclusion: Draw. Neither side made progress here. In my opinion the challenge should remain open until a better critique of the science that comprises SENS can be put forth. In the meantime SENS needs help. Each of the seven theories and proposed solutions could warrant a volume of technical information on their own. There is a lot of information about SENS that is dispersed across websites, message boards, FAQs, etc that needs to be consolidated into a consise and organized message. There is research going on whether due directly to SENS (e.g. LysoSENS) or in labs across the world and by referencing this work, would better illustrate to the scientific community examples of where investments can and should be made. Aubrey has mentioned that two publications are in the works. Hopefully these can shed some additional light on the theories and proposed solutions and communicate them to a level where both his peers in the scientific community and the public can better understand them.
The rules of science are pretty clear. Set out a hypothesis, roadmap and tests that can verify your hypothesis and then show results. Anyone can make bold predictions based on all the amazing things we see going on around us today. Regardless of how the judges decide, the science will go forward. Will this first fray sway power brokers to pay attention to SENS? Probably not. Will it rally more scientists to the cause? Doubtful. Will it raise more money for Aubrey and his followers? Unlikely. Hopefully what it does do is is send both de Grey and his critics back to their corners to sharpen their message and critiques because neither side scored many, if any points in this round.
Edited by maestro949, 11 June 2006 - 01:30 PM.
