Reason has a
good post about the show over at Fight Aging. His response to some of the comments here are :
If you don't stretch for the greater goals, you won't attain them. if you're not working towards the best possible result, you certainly won't get there. If we want to see significant progress towards true rejuvenation within our lifetimes - enabled by the march of science towards methods of repairing the cellular damage of aging - then we'd better step up and help to support the growth of SENS-like research programs.
Repairing aging is better than slowing aging, and doesn't look like it will take much longer, or be any harder. So why take the obviously worse route? Sadly, the obviously worse route is the dominant path for that part of the modern gerontology community willing to work towards healthy life extension. This must change in the years ahead.
A lot is being said here. I'm not going to take it apart piece by piece but in general I think both paths (School A & School B) require significant investment as "Best" is relative and there is little data from either school. Neither have been funded.
School A's investment in basic research towards understanding the specific metabolic causes of aging and various repair mechanisms that work for young organisms is of enormous value. Their emphasis is on reduction, systems biology, testing and getting to the core theories of aging. What is wrong with that?
It was basic research that lead to many of Aubrey's proposals was it not? Isn't it entirely possible that numerous additional good ideas that trump some if not all of the ideas proposed in SENS fall out of basic metabolic, genomic and proteomic aging research? Ideas that are more practical and/or economical? I'm not suggesting we sit around and wait for possible solutions to emerge, SENS interventions should be pursued but history tells us that the better we understand the low level functions of a complex system, the more likely we'll be able to control it's higher level properties. I think there are still many potential alternative solutions that we will be able to drive out the system including those like CR & resveratrol that slow aging.
The bottom line is that we need more money invested in all aspects of biogerontology research, not just SENS type efforts. One poster responds to reason's blog with :
I think this is one of those situations where any publicity is good publicity.
If 1,000,000 people watch this show, and 100,000 of them are inspired to spend a little time poking around the internet for more information on anti-aging research (the modest-goals school is plausible to the average person and still of interest), and 10,000 of them consequently stumble upon Fight Aging or de Grey's site or Kurzweil's, and 1,000 of those take the time to read more and come to understand the real issues -- well, I don't see any downside.
Ironically, the opposite affect may be just as true. People may see the controversy surrounding "the debate" which generates attention and funding for less radical approaches. e.g. Is this show an example of this? Regardless, it's a win-win and good for longevity research that the debate exists and that factions are beginning to emerge. Now we just need a militant wing [tung]
