24 replies to this topic

[Lauren]

Hi Everyone,

I know this might seem to be a long shot, but I am an extraordinarily ambitious person, and I have always equated the aging process as synonymous with disease. In fact, it might be argued that considering that the definition of a disease process includes the anatomical and physiochemical breakdown of the human body, then the aging process is very much tantamount to a disease. Therefore, it should be treated as a disease. I've always believed that more government money should be appropriated toward stimulating programs for medical research and technological development in preventing the aging process, just as funding is allocated toward programs for eradicating disease.

Given that there is already a Centers for Disease Control in existence, should not there also be a Centers for the Prevention of Aging? I had a revelation to petition Congress and the U.S. Government to create such an institution, and I would *love* to be able to create a petition in order to effectuate this. I do have concerns as to the monetary feasibility of this project, but I *do* believe that it is our responsibility as concerned citizens to create such an entity. And I believe that if we galvanize enough support, we might be able to get the message out there to members of Congress and the Feds about this one. Or perhaps we could write to the NIH to oversee the construction and monetary backing of such a center. I know I'm assuming an enormous risk with such a lofty ambition, and there is a great chance that the project will be turned down due to lack of funding, but the truth of the matter is that I just don't want to see another person die. I am terrified of death, and in a longevity meme I had read by my boyfriend Devon, a *brilliant* writer and a beautiful person along every dimension (and I will include a link to his meme once I have an operational computer. I just *wish* that iPod touches came with a copy/paste function), I had discovered the disconcerting statistic that over 150,000 people die each day from age-related illnesses that, with enough funding for research and development, could be treated. This is why creating a Center for the Prevention of Aging is so vital. I just don't want to see another person succumb to an age-related illness that could have, with enough financial support, been cured. Therefore, I was wondering if you all would join me in making such a concept a reality. Thank you so much for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Lauren

[John Schloendorn]

You have a lot of faith in big brother to solve your problems. Good luck to you, I hope it will go better than the war on cancer.
PS: Sounds like you should talk to this guy http://www.coalitiontoextendlife.org/

[Florin]

A similar proposal is being discussed at the SENS Foundation's forum here (you'll need to create an account and log in to view the discussion).

[Lauren]

Thank you all for your responses. While I do not entirely distrust big brother, I am skeptical of it. However, I am optimistic that with extensive government reform in the medical sector et alia, the U.S. Government will be adequate and sufficient enough to create a Centers for the Prevention of Aging. And I believe that the U.S. Government has an obligation to its citizens to protect them from age-related illnesses and all other malfunctions associated with the aging process.

That having been said, I realize that there is only so much that I can do as a citizen, but I am determined to do as
much as I possibly can to petition the U.S. Government to create a Centers for the Prevention of Aging, starting with joining the SENS initiative and following the links you had posted. I thank you so much for your contributions, and I wish you the best of luck with all of your present and future endeavors. Take care, and I look forward to hearing from you soon!!

Sincerely,

Lauren

[Lauren]

You have a lot of faith in big brother to solve your problems. Good luck to you, I hope it will go better than the war on cancer.
PS: Sounds like you should talk to this guy http://www.coalitiontoextendlife.org/

Thank you so much for providing me with this link - This was *exactly* what I was looking for. I will *definitely* have to get in touch with this guy and bounce some ideas around.

As to big brother, while I do not entirely distrust it, I haven't given up hope for reform. And I believe that with *extensive* reform in the medical sector, both the war on cancer and the war on disease and the aging process will ultimately claim victory. I know that as a citizen there is a limit to what I can do, but that won't deter me from not fighting this with every fiber in my body. I don't want to see another person fall victim to the ravages of the aging process, so I vow to fight for our lives by giving everything I can to the SENS initiative and through collaboration with the Coalition to Extend Life. Through these strides, I hope to contribute to the negation of senescence and to preserve humanity for the sake of our civilization and future generations within it that have yet to emerge.

[Florin]

Instead of a petition which might take be too difficult to undertake, a national, well-publicized survey about health and longevity attitudes conducted by a respected polling organization might be a better strategy to try. If a significant percentage of likely voters respond that they would like to retain good health for an indefinite period of time, then pressure could be applied on politicians to fund the right research. The survey questions would have to be carefully formulated to make it clear that those voters would like funding priority given to innovative research like SENS which would be the most likely to accomplish their goals instead of to the incremental kind which comprises most of mainstream research today. There have been similar surveys conducted in the past [1,2,3,4], but they were either too small or not conducted in the United States.

[John Schloendorn]

You're welcome. Heh. You do sound like a politician :-) Let us know how it all goes.

[JJN]

I like long shots, don't worry about it. Some others here do as well, otherwise they would be elsewhere, living a life of total dissipation...

For various reasons, big government may not be the best way to go. But as you say, maybe it would be better if they were more behind the effort in the future than they are now.

I do like the idea in general. Trouble is, I don't know what is currently being done, and if efforts towards the cause are growing, shrinking, or staying the same.

It seems difficult to quantify the amount of effort being expended currently on researching cures for aging. Some say that none, or very little, is being done by the gov. I have no idea what the numbers are currently.

My only suggestion for now is to set our sights a little lower than a full blown government agency. Yes, big mainstream science is an incremental entity. But I'm sure there is some research being done that will directly, or indirectly, support the cause.

As for SENS, I'm not convinced that is the end all of defeating aging in itself. Seems many here think it is. Send them oodles of money, and we'll be immortal. There is a lot of mainstream science that will be needed to support it's possible success. I'm not knowledgable enough to enter into a debate about SENS, but I'm sure that advances in mainstream science would help it along. Also, mainstream science WILL absolutely help some of us stay alive long enough for cures for aging to be developed. This is part of the equation, and needs to be realistically factored in. Seems many ignore it, and just concentrate on the fact that there is little being done to "cure aging", whatever that really means, and mainstream science is just looking at curing acute diseases. They both are wrapped up together.

Sorry, this is a somewhat rambling post, with no clear point. But you have definitely given me something to think about, and I hope, some others would give it serious thought too.

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 22 September 2010 - 04:07 AM.

[bacopa]

I like long shots, don't worry about it. Some others here do as well, otherwise they would be elsewhere, living a life of total dissipation...

For various reasons, big government may not be the best way to go. But as you say, maybe it would be better if they were more behind the effort in the future than they are now.

I do like the idea in general. Trouble is, I don't know what is currently being done, and if efforts towards the cause are growing, shrinking, or staying the same.

It seems difficult to quantify the amount of effort being expended currently on researching cures for aging. Some say that none, or very little, is being done by the gov. I have no idea what the numbers are currently.

My only suggestion for now is to set our sights a little lower than a full blown government agency. Yes, big mainstream science is an incremental entity. But I'm sure there is some research being done that will directly, or indirectly, support the cause.

As for SENS, I'm not convinced that is the end all of defeating aging in itself. Seems many here think it is. Send them oodles of money, and we'll be immortal. There is a lot of mainstream science that will be needed to support it's possible success. I'm not knowledgable enough to enter into a debate about SENS, but I'm sure that advances in mainstream science would help it along. Also, mainstream science WILL absolutely help some of us stay alive long enough for cures for aging to be developed. This is part of the equation, and needs to be realistically factored in. Seems many ignore it, and just concentrate on the fact that there is little being done to "cure aging", whatever that really means, and mainstream science is just looking at curing acute diseases. They both are wrapped up together.

Sorry, this is a somewhat rambling post, with no clear point. But you have definitely given me something to think about, and I hope, some others would give it serious thought too.

Jeff

Good points...I think the petition idea might work, as Florin said, if it can accurately reflect the general publics desires. I do remember two surveys/polls done one in Russia, and one with several countries, and the Russian poll the majority of people wanted to live much longer, may forever, I forget this crucial detail. And the multiple country poll said all countries a large minority, and some 1st world countries, a majority wanted to extend life.

There has been talk how SENS could work with other disease specific orgs, and form an alliance, where both interests are mutually met, and therefore, SENS could get it's funding, at least partially. But Aubrey is against this idea, for some reason. SENS is in alliance with two biotech companies which is the kind of thing you were talking about. These two biotech companies, Sierra sciences being one of them, are focused on more incremental anti-aging ideas.

[John Schloendorn]

Yeah I think Jeff's post is spot on. There is some thought to be put into what exactly is research to "cure aging" and what isn't. The whole problem is that we don't know. If we knew, we could just do it and be done. You find out only by doing it, and you get reasonable guesses ("hypotheses") only by doing basic research. That's what makes it science. So how exactly is the $40bn+/year that NIH & NSF are dumping on basic life science research misplaced? Or how specifically do we propose to improve it?

Right now, the prevailing strategy seems to be, produce knowledge with a centralized government behemoth, and then leave it to industry to take the knowledge and develop cures. To be fair, the implementation is screwed up in many ways (professors patenting research methods...), but in principle, I think it's not the worst system the government has produced.

How can a specific pro-life extension argument be formulated in this context?

[bacopa]

Yeah I think Jeff's post is spot on. There is some thought to be put into what exactly is research to "cure aging" and what isn't. The whole problem is that we don't know. If we knew, we could just do it and be done. You find out only by doing it, and you get reasonable guesses ("hypotheses") only by doing basic research. That's what makes it science. So how exactly is the $40bn+/year that NIH & NSF are dumping on basic life science research misplaced? Or how specifically do we propose to improve it?

Right now, the prevailing strategy seems to be, produce knowledge with a centralized government behemoth, and then leave it to industry to take the knowledge and develop cures. To be fair, the implementation is screwed up in many ways (professors patenting research methods...), but in principle, I think it's not the worst system the government has produced.

How can a specific pro-life extension argument be formulated in this context?

I wonder what is happening with the Longevity Dividend proposal. Last time I asked, I was told it wasn't being adopted, but I haven't checked. I would guess that very little money is going to actual preventing the aging process, and that the 40 bn+/yr is only going to disease specific research, and we all know how the patent system, licensing problems, and the FDA, has prevented promising scientific cures from seeing the light of day.

I think Lauren's idea is good in that it focuses on age related diseases, as well as the process itself, and I think if we adopt some kind of a petition, or some other method, we need to present it with a vested interest in wanting to stop age related diseases, and then, oh yes, also let's extend healthy lifespan? Obviously, it has to be said just right, so it doesn't sound like we are being manipulative.

[Florin]

Yeah I think Jeff's post is spot on. There is some thought to be put into what exactly is research to "cure aging" and what isn't. The whole problem is that we don't know. If we knew, we could just do it and be done. You find out only by doing it, and you get reasonable guesses ("hypotheses") only by doing basic research. That's what makes it science. So how exactly is the $40bn+/year that NIH & NSF are dumping on basic life science research misplaced? Or how specifically do we propose to improve it?

For starters, a few billion for The Longevity Dividend and $1 billion for SENS would be nice. These people might be excused for not knowing about or ignoring SENS, but there's no excuse for not funding the LD. The LD's goal of seven healthy years for a mere $3 billion per year is a bargain compared to what we now get for $28 billion per year in spending at the NIH and $309 billion for Medicare. So, I think the next step is to find out why the LD hasn't been funded yet. Someone has already asked Olshansky why he thinks it has so far failed to attract funding. Now, we're waiting for his reply.

[bacopa]

Yeah I think Jeff's post is spot on. There is some thought to be put into what exactly is research to "cure aging" and what isn't. The whole problem is that we don't know. If we knew, we could just do it and be done. You find out only by doing it, and you get reasonable guesses ("hypotheses") only by doing basic research. That's what makes it science. So how exactly is the $40bn+/year that NIH & NSF are dumping on basic life science research misplaced? Or how specifically do we propose to improve it?

For starters, a few billion for The Longevity Dividend and $1 billion for SENS would be nice. These people might be excused for not knowing about or ignoring SENS, but there's no excuse for not funding the LD. The LD's goal of seven healthy years for a mere $3 billion per year is a bargain compared to what we now get for $28 billion per year in spending at the NIH and $309 billion for Medicare. So, I think the next step is to find out why the LD hasn't been funded yet. Someone has already asked Olshansky why he thinks it has so far failed to attract funding. Now, we're waiting for his reply.

There really is no excuse, as it would save so much Federal money, and help people live longer, and not so "long" as to be "playing God," which I fear lots of people still would assume anti-aging orgs like SENS, are doing, but 7 years is what most people would be very comfortable with. But I just found out about MaxLife's Manhattan Project proposal, and it blew me away. I was impressed how like SENS, they pulled no punches, in their ideas. But that's just a side note. I hope Mr. Olshansky gives some kind of hope for his proposal.

[Florin]

There really is no excuse, as it would save so much Federal money, and help people live longer, and not so "long" as to be "playing God," which I fear lots of people still would assume anti-aging orgs like SENS, are doing, but 7 years is what most people would be very comfortable with.

I think what most people want is cures for disease. They just don't realize that cures for all of the diseases and disabilities of aging would inevitably lead to indefinitely-long lifespans. Perhaps this disconnect is one of the reasons that the LD hasn't been funded yet. In any case, for mainstream people SENS should be positioned as the most likely approach to cure the diseases of aging instead of a way to achieve 1,000-year lifespans.

So, instead of pushing something that might be perceived as frivolous such as longevity, why not beat them at their own disease-specific game? Besides the "big, bad government bureaucracy" at the NIH, this kind of approach can be tried on mainstream, disease-specific organizations such as the American Heart Association. The AHA has an annual budget of about half a billion dollars and yet there seems to be no cure for heart disease in sight. So, why don't we reach out to these orgs that are supposed to be passionate about actually curing disease? Why aren't they trying something that's more promising like SENS instead of wasting their donors' money on incremental stuff that is only slightly better than nothing? If the problem lies with risk-adverse commercial developers as Aubrey suggests, why don't these orgs bypass them by funding more risky yet more promising approaches instead? Someone should try educating these people by, for instance, giving talks at their conferences about the repair-the-damage approach to curing atherosclerosis.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 22 September 2010 - 06:41 PM.

[bacopa]

There really is no excuse, as it would save so much Federal money, and help people live longer, and not so "long" as to be "playing God," which I fear lots of people still would assume anti-aging orgs like SENS, are doing, but 7 years is what most people would be very comfortable with.

I think what most people want is cures for disease. They just don't realize that cures for all of the diseases and disabilities of aging would inevitably lead to indefinitely-long lifespans. Perhaps this disconnect is one of the reasons that the LD hasn't been funded yet. In any case, for mainstream people SENS should be positioned as the most likely approach to cure the diseases of aging instead of a way to achieve 1,000-year lifespans.

So, instead of pushing something that might be perceived as frivolous such as longevity, why not beat them at their own disease-specific game? Besides the "big, bad government bureaucracy" at the NIH, this kind of approach can be tried on mainstream, disease-specific organizations such as the American Heart Association. The AHA has an annual budget of about half a billion dollars and yet there seems to be no cure for heart disease in sight. So, why don't we reach out to these orgs that are supposed to be passionate about actually curing disease? Why aren't they trying something that's more promising like SENS instead of wasting their donors' money on incremental stuff that is only slightly better than nothing? If the problem lies with risk-adverse commercial developers as Aubrey suggests, why don't these orgs bypass them by funding more risky yet more promising approaches instead? Someone should try educating these people by, for instance, giving talks at their conferences about the repair-the-damage approach to curing atherosclerosis.

Of course, most people have not even fathomed it could ever be possible to end aging in people. And of course this is very aggravating, because, people think I'm silly or very delusional, and it's like people haven't learned how to think around seemingly "impossible" scientific problems. Sure, agreed again on trying to convince people about things like repair damage approach, but like you say we have to gear it towards the disease specific. People don't want their precious notions of what's fathomable or not come in to play, now would they?

But the Longevity Dividend, seems totally in keeping with the slight incremental increase in life span that people seem to want, else there wouldn't be so much anti aging crap, peddled as "real science." So I like what Methuselah Foundation IS doing, which is making alliances with disease specific orgs, working on things people can relate too, like needing new kidneys, and even organ printing, which is not something I picture anyone worrying about either. And MF new organ prize, is what they were basically talking about on Oprah with Dr. Oz, and just recently a 60 minutes episode, partially devoted to rejuvenation therapies including extra cellular matrix, and tissue and organ replacement and repair.

So don't forget Methuselah Foundation funds SENS, to what degree, it will keep on doing so, I don't know, but it's promising, imo. I think Aubrey is acutely aware of societies fear of radical anti aging, but maybe he thinks the only way to beat the trance, is by blowing the doors wide open, and making people realize just what's at stake, and how short life presently is.

Finally, I like Elizer Yudkowsky's way of putting things, "you're going to die! This is horrible, you should do something about it!" Perhaps people ARE scared enough about death, and even aging, whether or not they choose to admit it....Maybe the right approach is to use that fear to build an anger, or a yearning in people to WANT to do something about it...I know that's what worked with me.

Edited by dfowler, 22 September 2010 - 11:23 PM.

[Florin]

Of course, most people have not even fathomed it could ever be possible to end aging in people. And of course this is very aggravating, because, people think I'm silly or very delusional, and it's like people haven't learned how to think around seemingly "impossible" scientific problems. Sure, agreed again on trying to convince people about things like repair damage approach, but like you say we have to gear it towards the disease specific. People don't want their precious notions of what's fathomable or not come in to play, now would they?

If you can't beat'em, join'em. Since nearly everyone wants cures for the diseases of aging, you could point out that the repair-the-damage approach is likely to produce better results than mainstream approaches and optionally, you could also casually mention that a side effect of curing these diseases would be indefinite life spans. It would be interesting to see how they react to this.

But the Longevity Dividend, seems totally in keeping with the slight incremental increase in life span that people seem to want, else there wouldn't be so much anti aging crap, peddled as "real science." So I like what Methuselah Foundation IS doing, which is making alliances with disease specific orgs, working on things people can relate too, like needing new kidneys, and even organ printing, which is not something I picture anyone worrying about either. And MF new organ prize, is what they were basically talking about on Oprah with Dr. Oz, and just recently a 60 minutes episode, partially devoted to rejuvenation therapies including extra cellular matrix, and tissue and organ replacement and repair.

So don't forget Methuselah Foundation funds SENS, to what degree, it will keep on doing so, I don't know, but it's promising, imo.

I agree that there's a lot of SENS research that the mainstream is already funding like tissue engineering, amyloid vaccines, and stem cell research, but there are also areas that aren't benefiting from this funding like the SENS strands that the SENS Foundation is funding and to a smaller extent Imminst.

I think Aubrey is acutely aware of societies fear of radical anti aging, but maybe he thinks the only way to beat the trance, is by blowing the doors wide open, and making people realize just what's at stake, and how short life presently is.

I think Aubrey's strategy is to inform people that will "get it" while ignoring the rest. This is probably why he speaks exclusively at mostly transhumanist and tech meetings.

Finally, I like Elizer Yudkowsky's way of putting things, "you're going to die! This is horrible, you should do something about it!" Perhaps people ARE scared enough about death, and even aging, whether or not they choose to admit it....Maybe the right approach is to use that fear to build an anger, or a yearning in people to WANT to do something about it...I know that's what worked with me.

Yes, this approach works with some people like us, but remember that most people are in the pro-aging trance and probably won't respond to this kind of approach. Since the disease-specific psychology and research infrastructure is already in place, why mess with it too much? Instead, I propose using it to our advantage.

[bacopa]

Of course, most people have not even fathomed it could ever be possible to end aging in people. And of course this is very aggravating, because, people think I'm silly or very delusional, and it's like people haven't learned how to think around seemingly "impossible" scientific problems. Sure, agreed again on trying to convince people about things like repair damage approach, but like you say we have to gear it towards the disease specific. People don't want their precious notions of what's fathomable or not come in to play, now would they?

If you can't beat'em, join'em. Since nearly everyone wants cures for the diseases of aging, you could point out that the repair-the-damage approach is likely to produce better results than mainstream approaches and optionally, you could also casually mention that a side effect of curing these diseases would be indefinite life spans. It would be interesting to see how they react to this.

But the Longevity Dividend, seems totally in keeping with the slight incremental increase in life span that people seem to want, else there wouldn't be so much anti aging crap, peddled as "real science." So I like what Methuselah Foundation IS doing, which is making alliances with disease specific orgs, working on things people can relate too, like needing new kidneys, and even organ printing, which is not something I picture anyone worrying about either. And MF new organ prize, is what they were basically talking about on Oprah with Dr. Oz, and just recently a 60 minutes episode, partially devoted to rejuvenation therapies including extra cellular matrix, and tissue and organ replacement and repair.

So don't forget Methuselah Foundation funds SENS, to what degree, it will keep on doing so, I don't know, but it's promising, imo.

I agree that there's a lot of SENS research that the mainstream is already funding like tissue engineering, amyloid vaccines, and stem cell research, but there are also areas that aren't benefiting from this funding like the SENS strands that the SENS Foundation is funding and to a smaller extent Imminst.

I think Aubrey is acutely aware of societies fear of radical anti aging, but maybe he thinks the only way to beat the trance, is by blowing the doors wide open, and making people realize just what's at stake, and how short life presently is.

I think Aubrey's strategy is to inform people that will "get it" while ignoring the rest. This is probably why he speaks exclusively at mostly transhumanist and tech meetings.

Finally, I like Elizer Yudkowsky's way of putting things, "you're going to die! This is horrible, you should do something about it!" Perhaps people ARE scared enough about death, and even aging, whether or not they choose to admit it....Maybe the right approach is to use that fear to build an anger, or a yearning in people to WANT to do something about it...I know that's what worked with me.

Yes, this approach works with some people like us, but remember that most people are in the pro-aging trance and probably won't respond to this kind of approach. Since the disease-specific psychology and research infrastructure is already in place, why mess with it too much? Instead, I propose using it to our advantage.

Thanks for replying in depth to my post, and you cleared at least one thing up for me, which is you're absolutely right, Aubrey is just focusing on those who "get it," which is probably much more time/cost effective than trying to undo the pro-trance brainwashing of most people. I'm still curious about your idea of polling people to see what sort of life spans they really want.

You asked Aubrey about joining forces with disease specific orgs, and he didn't think that was a good idea, but maybe one of us should suggest your approach of focusing mostly on repair damage as fixing specific diseases, and your heart disease example is as good as they get. Interestingly I'm going to help out MaxLife Foundation, or try to, and they incorporate the whole nine yards when it comes to fighting aging, including SENS, genomics, stem cells, tissue engineering, nanomedicine, when it comes, AGI, and even more. You should check out, if you haven't already, their Manhattan Beach project proposal, http://www.maxlife.org/pdfs/mbp.pdf, it's very impressive, and the founder Dave Kekich seems very reputable, from Brokenportal's take on things.

I guess Aubrey and Kurzweil are already on board. http://www.manhattanbeachproject.com/

[JJN]

NIH does publish all of their funding on http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/ , which seemed very clear about dollars spent. As for the section on aging, it seems a lot is being done for palliative care of the aged. There is a lot of data there to sift through, and I'm not knowledgable enough to understand how much of it may apply to life extension. There are other sections that contain some basic research as well.

I looked at the NSF site, but wasn't able to find as concise of a synsopsis.

I don't know if it's possible to sift through such reports, and see how much may be applicable to some of the more long term life extension activities, like the Manhattan Beach Project, SENS, and so on.

I'm sure that some of the mainstream gerontology orgs are doing basic research that align with long term life extension. There was a recent article in Scientific American by a gerontology researcher, Thomas Kirkwood, that presented it very well: http://www.scientifi...we-live-forever .

To get back to the original topic, it may be dificult to get the gov to start an agency devoted to curing aging specifically; there are reasons why research is done incrementally. Would be good to understand that more clearly.

Orgs such as SENS and so on, are taking on the task in their own way. They may have very good reasons to do so. For me though, I think mainstream science will play a large part in the cause. But without orgs like SENS, mainstream science would probably take a lot longer to a arrive at effective treatments, and vice versa.

I have been thinking along the lines of some sort of agency as well. But I'm thinking of a private think tank that can follow what all of the orgs like SENS and so on, and gov and other private researchers are doing, and how it all relates to life extension. It would take a lot of work, with a full time staff to do this. Does anyone know if such a thing already exists?

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 23 September 2010 - 08:35 PM.

[Florin]

Thanks for replying in depth to my post, and you cleared at least one thing up for me, which is you're absolutely right, Aubrey is just focusing on those who "get it," which is probably much more time/cost effective than trying to undo the pro-trance brainwashing of most people.

I agree that he should continue reaching out to those kinds of people, but I also think that he or someone else should at least try to reach organizations with deeper pockets.

I'm still curious about your idea of polling people to see what sort of life spans they really want.

I'll probably post about this in thread devoted to this topic sometime.

You asked Aubrey about joining forces with disease specific orgs, and he didn't think that was a good idea, but maybe one of us should suggest your approach of focusing mostly on repair damage as fixing specific diseases, and your heart disease example is as good as they get.

How do you propose to do that? I don't see why these orgs would want to pay any attention to us.

Progress is being made though, but it's still pretty slow. For instance, there has been a recent report about a nanoparticle/stem cell approach to repairing the damage inflicted by atherosclerosis, and Aubrey has hinted that LysoSENS research might be presented at a mainstream venue and that decision makers are coming around to the repair-the-damage approach. However, he admitted that it's still slow going.

Interestingly I'm going to help out MaxLife Foundation, or try to, and they incorporate the whole nine yards when it comes to fighting aging, including SENS, genomics, stem cells, tissue engineering, nanomedicine, when it comes, AGI, and even more. You should check out, if you haven't already, their Manhattan Beach project proposal, http://www.maxlife.org/pdfs/mbp.pdf, it's very impressive, and the founder Dave Kekich seems very reputable, from Brokenportal's take on things.

Except for SENS, the other stuff that the MBP mentions is either already mainstream (i.e., stem cells), unnecessary (i.e., huge research center), likely to be unworkable or provide minimal benefit (i.e., pharmaceuticals/nutraceuticals, genome re-engineering), or might arrive too late (nanomedicine, AI). Also, I don't agree with the MBP's funding priorities—SENS only gets $6 million out of the the total $30.5 million. Even with all of those negatives, it's still better than nothing though.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 24 September 2010 - 07:06 AM.

[bacopa]

How do you propose to do that? I don't see why these orgs would want to pay any attention to us.

I meant Aubrey should try to gear his language more towards how his repair approach would solve specific diseases. You said Lyso SENS may incorporate strategies for diseases like, atherosclerosis, at some point, and that was the kind of thing I was getting at, trying to present SENS findings, when they come out, or before to disease specific orgs, and mainstream science, and see what happens.

Also, I don't agree with the MBP's funding priorities—SENS only gets $6 million out of the the total $30.5 million.

We'll see how the anti-aging war unfolds, and probably in the next 5-10 years, (Maxlife believes some stuff like stem cell therapies and genome re-engineering, will unfold and the aging process will be slowed down,) the picture will be much clearer as to how to attract the mainstream disease orgs.

Edited by dfowler, 25 September 2010 - 10:43 PM.

[Florin]

NIH does publish all of their funding on http://report.nih.gov/rcdc/categories/ , which seemed very clear about dollars spent. As for the section on aging, it seems a lot is being done for palliative care of the aged. There is a lot of data there to sift through, and I'm not knowledgable enough to understand how much of it may apply to life extension. There are other sections that contain some basic research as well.

Since the current mainstream paradigm for intervention in aging is mostly to slow the rate of aging damage accumulation (e.g., statin drugs) and slow the rate at which aging damage causes disease (e.g., blood pressure drugs), I doubt that significant amounts of funding flows toward SENS-like research—except for stem cells and amyloid vaccines.

I looked at the NSF site, but wasn't able to find as concise of a synsopsis.

Since the NSF seems geared toward funding basic science research instead of applied science or medical interventions, I doubt that it's funding anything significantly related to aging or aging diseases. A review of its Directorate for Biological Sciences mission statement and project funding confirms this view.

I'm sure that some of the mainstream gerontology orgs are doing basic research that align with long term life extension. There was a recent article in Scientific American by a gerontology researcher, Thomas Kirkwood, that presented it very well: http://www.scientifi...we-live-forever .

Even if these orgs funded the right research, they're poorly funded compared to the NIH and charitable, disease-specific orgs like the AHA.

To get back to the original topic, it may be dificult to get the gov to start an agency devoted to curing aging specifically; there are reasons why research is done incrementally. Would be good to understand that more clearly.

The main problem is that research is not directed at curing aging or even significantly slowing it down.

Orgs such as SENS and so on, are taking on the task in their own way. They may have very good reasons to do so. For me though, I think mainstream science will play a large part in the cause. But without orgs like SENS, mainstream science would probably take a lot longer to a arrive at effective treatments, and vice versa.

Since it seems that you might not know too much about the difference between the SENS approach and mainstream approaches to aging, I suggest that you might want to educate yourself a little more here and here. Mainstream science already plays a large role via stem cells, amyloid, and some cancer research, but it doesn't fund other parts of SENS—that's why the SENSF and Imminst research projects exist.

I have been thinking along the lines of some sort of agency as well. But I'm thinking of a private think tank that can follow what all of the orgs like SENS and so on, and gov and other private researchers are doing, and how it all relates to life extension. It would take a lot of work, with a full time staff to do this. Does anyone know if such a thing already exists?

I've created a page in the first half of this year that attempts to do this, but I've stopped working on it for now. Since there are comparitively very few SENS-like projects that exist (except for stem cell projects perhaps), I don't think a full time staff would be needed (except for the cooperation of SENSF staff) to do fully populate and maintain such a page.

Edited by Florin Clapa, 26 September 2010 - 09:29 PM.

[JJN]

Florin,

In basic terms, I am aware of some of the differences between mainstream researching of geriatric treatments, and actually curing aging.

I did look at your site, and have a lot of respect for what you are doing.

Yes, I do have a lot of learning to do about this whole subject.

I still posit that mainstream science is critical to the success of the effort. It comes in many forms, but all such efforts require a sound infrastructure of mainstream science for it to succeed, not only in medical research, but technology in general. Imminst is on point in promoting folding@ home, and so on.

What I see though, is that a lot of what is being done is on a grassroots level. I have not seen analysis of how to actually successfully pursue such an effort. Some grassroots efforts succeed for various reasons, and some fail.

I am still a little clueless about how to proceed for myself. I don't know what effort to get behind, and why. I tend to look for a clear enunciation of a few top level theses. I have not seen that very clearly. "To eliminate the blight of involuntary aging" is a very good mission statement, but it is very open to what ways to proceed, how, and why.

Is the goal to influence policy makers, to get wealthy people to contribute to SENS, or what? I really don't have time to study all of the minutiae of what is being done. I probably never will. I would love to see detailed charts and graphs of how the goal is being accomplished. This would require a lot of study, and is why I think it would require a full time org to follow it. Another way to look at it is: would a full time org be better than what we have now? I think it is. One of the problems may follow from this example: a conservative estimate for SENS I saw mentioned is a budget of $100 million per year. Are they getting close, failing miserably, or what? I really don't know. I have no metrics to follow.

I am still confused about what is going on. What I will try to do, is to enunciate more clearly what I think are the most important high level goals and efforts, be it mainstream science, polling, influencing policy makers, grassroots efforts, and so on. I really do try to start with the basic overall clear view of things, it is how my mind works.

This post is not what I really wanted to write, but my mind is still a little disjointed. Hopefully, I can clarify it more in the times to come.

Jeff

Edited by JJN, 30 September 2010 - 03:33 AM.

[Florin]

I did look at your site, and have a lot of respect for what you are doing.

Thanks. I'm glad to know that our efforts are appreciated.

I still posit that mainstream science is critical to the success of the effort. It comes in many forms, but all such efforts require a sound infrastructure of mainstream science for it to succeed, not only in medical research, but technology in general. Imminst is on point in promoting folding@ home, and so on.

I agree, but in many areas mainstream research isn't going in the right direction yet (i.e., in the direction of SENS). As I've mentioned before, this is why the SENS Foundation exists and why Imminst is sponsoring small, SENS-like research projects. Mainstream research will eventually get there even without the SENSF and Imminst, but it might become too late for us—and a lot of other people—to benefit from the mainstream's slower efforts.

What I see though, is that a lot of what is being done is on a grassroots level. I have not seen analysis of how to actually successfully pursue such an effort. Some grassroots efforts succeed for various reasons, and some fail.

I am still a little clueless about how to proceed for myself. I don't know what effort to get behind, and why. I tend to look for a clear enunciation of a few top level theses. I have not seen that very clearly. "To eliminate the blight of involuntary aging" is a very good mission statement, but it is very open to what ways to proceed, how, and why.

In the short-term, the most promising way to defeat aging is SENS. Imminst's kitchen sink approach basically follows any kind of technology that might extend human life such as calorie restriction, cryonics, mind uploading, SENS, and supplements. Imminst also funds a few, small, SENS-like research projects with a budget of a few thousand dollars. The SENS Foundation focuses exclusively on SENS. It has an annual budget somewhat over $1 million. The easiest way to help is by donating. There are other ways to help as well such as getting involved in the actual research, talking about it with friends and family, and thinking of new ways to speed up the research and inflow of funding.

Is the goal to influence policy makers, to get wealthy people to contribute to SENS, or what?

The goal is to get as much funding for SENS as possible as fast as possible using various methods such as influencing policy makers and getting wealthy people to contribute. Somewhat comprehensive lists of fundraising and marketing ideas are also available.

I really don't have time to study all of the minutiae of what is being done. I probably never will. I would love to see detailed charts and graphs of how the goal is being accomplished. This would require a lot of study, and is why I think it would require a full time org to follow it. Another way to look at it is: would a full time org be better than what we have now? I think it is.

This is exactly why I think that Imminst and the SENSF—or another venue—need to do a much better job at providing easy-to-understand information on what is going on for people like you that are either new to all of this or don't have the time to wade through all of this stuff. This is a major reason I co-founded the CAA—to fill this information vacuum. It still needs a lot of work (e.g., what each org is doing, how it fits together, the progress metrics, etc.), but at least relatively good intro material is in place—yes, that can be improved as well by adding some illustrations for example.

One of the problems may follow from this example: a conservative estimate for SENS I saw mentioned is a budget of $100 million per year. Are they getting close, failing miserably, or what? I really don't know. I have no metrics to follow.

I've heard that the SENSF currently has an annual budget somewhat over $1 million. However, this is still a far cry from the $100 million per year for 10 years that Aubrey estimates would be needed to try all possible approaches to get to RMR (Robust Mouse Rejuvenation)—although he has stated that "just" $50 million per year might be enough. Last year, I created a few scenarios here and here about when the SENSF might receive this amount of funding based on different rates of funding progress. The bottom line is that if the current average rate of funding progress holds, RMR should be achieved around 2028 and RHR (Robust Human Rejuvenation) around 2043.

I am still confused about what is going on. What I will try to do, is to enunciate more clearly what I think are the most important high level goals and efforts, be it mainstream science, polling, influencing policy makers, grassroots efforts, and so on. I really do try to start with the basic overall clear view of things, it is how my mind works.

Yes, this is exactly how I like to begin researching most subjects—by getting a high-level overview. Unfortunately, this stuff tends to be a little more opaque than it should be. I fear that even if people are interested in this stuff, most might give up or be less active than they could be simply due to the fact that it can be difficult to keep track of what's happening.

[caliban]

I guess there is no a tangible project emerging here?

Best place to shift this thread?

[kenny001]

good, and i am sure all the people will love it, as we know nealy all the people love the youth and are afraid of being aging. great idea for the people.