44 replies to this topic

[opales]

Again, good intentions and rhetorics, but you will not have "scientifically debated" SENS before we see your paper in rejres or elsewhere (med hypotheses?). I have confidence in your ideas and am sure the better ones of them will be publishable if you invest the effort to organize them better and mount a coherent defense.

While peer review has its perks, it also has some drawbacks too; namely, it is freakishly slow. While it is a judgement call what is deemed important enough to warrant a publication and review, for practical purposes it is better to express and debate many issues via less resource and time consuming media.

I think Aubrey is judging Prometheus' efforts undeservedly harshly. The discussion on GRG list was one the few debates aimed at critiqueing and improving SENS since I have been around, and the overall interest and participation it received among the very people we want to be interested (gerontologists) was surely net positive for SENS agenda. Aubrey must agree that scientific debate on specific issues of SENS is exactly what we want, especially if done through courteous (albeit perhaps repetitive) argumentation, unlike, say, any of the SENS Challenge submissions (and the follow-ups by Estep himself) which quite frankly were embarassing in their unsubstantiated ad hominem tone.

[caston]

Caston, a peer-reviewed journal has the primary function to filter out pseudoscience and outright junk, so people don't have to waste as much time researching what's junk and what isn't.

Would the SPAM filter analogy be appropriate? Sometimes you need to check your junk mail folder to see if something legitimate got sent there incorrectly.
A scientific advance tomorrow may be ignored by established scientists today.

[John Schloendorn]

Prometheus,

I do not need to publish a paper in a journal for my views to contain scientific validity.

No, but a journal offers to provide some check for you and others that this is true -- free of charge! Putting your ideas in a coherent form is necessary anyway. Writing a paper in a journal is an opportunity to get help with this difficult task, not an after the fact nuisance, and on top of that a chance to reach an audience you could not otherwise.

Your resort to criticizing my "rhetoric"

Not criticizing it, I said it's good.

WILT is dead John. It is important to have the courage to aknowledge this

I do not have enough knowledge to make any prediction on this.

when it comes to achieving escape velocity it is not the journey that counts but reaching the destination

One cannot reach a destination without first mastering the journey.

Caston,
Yes, the idea of imminsters making a true contribution on the fora is romantic, but 99.99% of the time it simply did not work that way, least of all in bioscience. If this is an exception, then an organized formulation of the ideas is necessary to allow others to recognize it.

Opales,

unlike, say, any of the SENS Challenge submissions (and the follow-ups by Estep himself) which quite frankly were embarassing in their unsubstantiated ad hominem tone.

And you think when Aubrey responded to multiple points all over the fora, even repeatedly, this qualifies as ignoring someone? They may not have reached an agreement, that happens all the time in academic discussion, but the term "ignore" is totally inappropriate.

[John Schloendorn]

Allright, I'll have a shot at these too:

Cancer:
The project you envision is nascent. It is rumored that Cui identified some individuals with leukocytes that behave similarly to the mouse leukocytes in vitro), and this is very exciting. People are working on it, very potent potential supporters are aware of it, and if we are ridiculously lucky, they will cure cancer. The same is true for several other groups' work (e.g. certain types of adaptive immune therapy, or telomerase inhibition). What's wrong with anyone trying the same with their particular ideas?

mito-hTERT:
This too is a single and interesting result, which requires more research to become meaningful. It may turn out that loss of the function to which this study points would be very detrimental in humans, but it may also be that it is not. This should be investigated, and WILT depends on more than this one insecurity. There is simply no more one can know about mito-hTERT before more data becomes available, and more data is being worked upon. Therefore, it is not yet the time to massively therorize about this phenomenon, just like countless other single results at the forefront of our expanding knowledge, which are also no part of SENS. Give it time, in biotech one can't shoot as soon an in vitro suspect of a target comes in sight.

[John Schloendorn]

True, ROI is one criterion, but there are others, almost equally important, namely lack of academic attention in the mainstream, and low fundability by other sources (why this is so is explained on Aubrey's web page). Cui scores relatively high on the first criterion, but not at the other two.

Therefore, I feel the limited MF resarch resources can make more of a difference in Lyso and Mito SENS, currently.

[John Schloendorn]

A broadening of the MF's scope by lessening the importance of the latter two criteria has been brought up every now and then, but can be seriously considerd only after our research resources see a dramatic increase.

[John Schloendorn]

Yes, to the Methuselah Foundation. This is one reason to consider the above-mentioned broadening of scope once we can afford it.

[John Schloendorn]

I am not aware of Cui's current agenda and plans, but think that it would make sense for him to proceed (or have proceeded, if the above-mentioned rumor is true) somewhere along these lines.

[John Schloendorn]

Speaking only for myself, I find his results extremely exciting and can't wait to hear more. However, given my resources and occupation, I do not see much overlap between our activities that could be the grounds for a collaboration. As Cui's results mature, and perhaps so will my position in the Methuselah Foundation, I might become more interested in pushing along these lines, but that really depends on future developments. I hope other foundation volunteers will answer for themselves.