I am told that something will appear at www.jasonpontin.com in about an hour from now....
Edit by kevin:
Please refer to the historical context of this thread here.
Posted 28 July 2005 - 10:13 PM
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:01 PM
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:01 PM
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:03 PM
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:13 PM
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:16 PM
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:38 PM
(my emphasis)The Terms of the SENS Challenge
1. The Challenge is open to any molecular biologist with a Ph.D from a recognized academic institution who is now associated with a recognized research institution and who has published on biogerontology in peer-reviewed journals. Technology Review will rule on whether a given individual can enter the Challenge.
2. The purpose of the Challenge is to establish whether SENS is worthy of serious consideration. Submissions are sought that attempt to demonstrate that it is not.
3. Submissions will be judged by a review panel, entirely independent of Technology Review and the Methuselah Foundation, composed of recognized molecular biologists, clinicians, and engineers. The members of panel are to be announced.
4. De Grey will reply to all submissions. The biologist may respond. All three documents will be considered by the panel.
5. The initial Challenge prize fund of $20,000 will be paid by matching funds from Technology Review and the Methuselah Foundation.
6. Anyone who wishes to pledge to the Challenge prize fund may do so; they should contact jason.pontin@technologyreview.com, the Editor of Technology Review.
7. The form of the submission must be a core document of no more than 750 words, although additional footnotes, citations, and references can be of any length.
8. If the prize is won, the winning submission will be published as the “By Invitation” column in a forthcoming issue of Technology Review. The magazine will also print de Grey’s response.
9. Submissions should be sent to jason.pontin@technologyreview.com.
Posted 28 July 2005 - 11:42 PM
Posted 29 July 2005 - 02:49 AM
Are any of the Imminst SENS skeptics also molecular biologists in the field of aging research?
I promised to find a working biogerontologist who would take on de Grey’s ideas. But while a number of biologists have criticized SENS to me privately, none have been willing to do so in public.
This silence is puzzling (de Grey, less charitably, calls it “catatonia”). If de Grey is so wrong, why won't any biogerontologists say why he is wrong? If he is totally nuts, it shouldn't be so hard to explain the faults in his science, surely?
One possible explanation for the silence of biogerontologists is that criticizing SENS would require time and effort—and that working scientists are too busy to waste time on something so silly. Another explanation (one obviously preferred by de Grey) is that biogerontologists reject SENS out of hand without examining its details.
Technology Review thinks it would be useful to determine which of the two explanations is correct. If SENS has some validity, then we should take it seriously. Because if we can significantly extend healthy life, we will have to ask—should we?
Posted 29 July 2005 - 02:59 AM
Posted 29 July 2005 - 01:24 PM
Perhaps a bit harsh, perhaps even a bit uncalled for, but their silence really has brought such types of criticism upon themselves.The problem is, the biogerontologists are ignoring SENS. Perhaps they think it won't work. Perhaps the idea that aging can be cured is so wild that, despite the rational scientific approach of SENS, these biogerontologists are just afraid of it, the way that Flat Earthers are afraid of the possibility that the earth is round.
"Sure, there's ‘evidence’, and sure, there's a valid ‘theory’, but are you stupid! The earth is flat! End of discussion! I will not consider this fairy tale that the earth is round. Total Rubbish!"
That's what the silence of the biogerontology community amounts to. Flat Earthers, afraid to acknowledge that biotechnology is moving at an amazingly rapid and accelerating rate, and while the complex biochemistry of metabolism might elude us for several more decades, the molecular and cellular causes of aging are already known, and in theory, treatable in the next two to three decades, if we would but dedicate the personnel and the funding and the research tools.
Posted 29 July 2005 - 01:27 PM
Hmm, I don't think that's grammatically correct. The silence didn't criticism upon the silence. Let me try again:but their silence really has brought such types of criticism upon themselves.
Posted 29 July 2005 - 07:48 PM
Posted 30 July 2005 - 01:24 AM
I am worried by this idea.
It specifically motivates to discredit SENS offering $20,000,
including the Methuselah Foundation money ($10,000 dollars) !
I believe that this money could be much better spent on objective
evaluation of the SENS project, rather than for making direct
invitation to discredit it.
Posted 30 July 2005 - 01:45 AM
Edited by DonSpanton, 30 July 2005 - 02:23 PM.
Posted 30 July 2005 - 02:06 AM
Caliban - no in fact, I think the opposite is true. If the anti-SENS argument can't be stated in 750 words, it's probably not a particularly slam-dunk argument, and the challenge is to provide a slam-dunk, an argument that SENS is not just wrong but idiotic.
Posted 30 July 2005 - 02:26 AM
Posted 30 July 2005 - 02:33 AM
Posted 30 July 2005 - 02:41 AM
One way might be to show that cancer cells could infect and turn on all necessary oncogenes and disable all necessary tumor suppressors, in at least 1 in a few million cells that come in contact with cancer cells. Not only would this have to be possible, but for it to be relevant, it would have to be the standard MO of cancer. I brought up this very argument with Aubrey several months ago in fact, since I could have sworn I'd heard of such cancer spreading methods, but de Grey seemed confident that it doesn't happen. He'd obviously thought of it as well, and found evidence to discount the possibility. If necessary, Aubrey'll have references, and at the least, any such argument will fall flat on its face without its own set of references.
Posted 30 July 2005 - 03:12 AM
Edited by treonsverdery, 19 October 2006 - 04:45 AM.
Posted 30 July 2005 - 03:34 AM
Another line of attack would be to argue that that there are more than seven deadlies (I can't think of any, but who knows, maybe a brilliant theoretician could).
Posted 30 July 2005 - 04:51 AM
To clarify, I am not worried that Aubrey will lose in a fair fight. I am only concerned that Pontin and TR will not fight fair.
Another line of attack would be to argue that that there are more than seven deadlies
Posted 30 July 2005 - 08:12 AM
Prometheus: Jason was doing really well until that last sentence. Why on earth anyone, who is of sound mind and body, would choose not to extend their lifespan is beyond reason but I suppose he must continue to play this role for the sake of the perceived values of his constituency. One aspect of the pursuit of SENS type interventions which goes largely undereported are the multiple benefits to conventional pathologies such as cancer, organ disease, etc.
Edited by DonSpanton, 30 July 2005 - 02:22 PM.
Posted 30 July 2005 - 11:52 AM
Posted 30 July 2005 - 06:03 PM
Posted 30 July 2005 - 08:40 PM
Posted 30 July 2005 - 11:40 PM
any particular perpetual motion device can be debunked, and many have been.
Perpetual Motion in theory can be trivially shown to be impossible via thermodynamic arguments, at least in the long term. Electrons and planets, re: MethuselahMouse's comments, won't move forever, furthermore, if you try to use them to do any work, as perpetual motion scientist often intend, they degrade even faster. In fact, a serious problem for any immortalist is Entropy in the global sense, since we aren't sure where to get new protons when ours start breaking.
Posted 31 July 2005 - 03:05 PM
I'm only talking about mice
Posted 31 July 2005 - 04:08 PM
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users