Ask Aubrey de Grey About Longevity Research

There may be such a thing as a conventional scientist -- but Aubrey de Grey is not one. Instead, biogerontologist de Grey has spent much of the last 20 years investigating the science of aging by considering the aging process as a multifaceted disease whose manifestations can be mitigated, rather than an inevitability to merely accept. That might not be unusual in itself, but de Grey believes that by addressing the causes and symptoms of aging, human life can be extended to at least 1000 years — a stance has earned him accolades and contempt in various degrees. (He might not especially mind being called names like "rogue" and "maverick," though.) De Grey is also chairman and chief science officer of The Methuselah Foundation, whose M-Prize for extending the lifespan of mice has been mentioned on Slashdot before. Ask de Grey about his research below; he'll answer the top-rated questions, and we'll publish them in this space. The usual Slashdot interview rules apply — so ask all the questions you'd like, but please confine yourself to one per post.

Comments

Straigh to the Point

[sexconker]

What tangible, confirmed success have you had in extending the lifespan of humans, if any?

Economics of Anti-Aging

[spun]

Most people are very afraid of dying, and would spend almost any amount of money to live longer. Anyone promising to help them do so can extract nearly limitless quantities of money from people. Given that, why should we believe you aren't a complete charlatan?

Re:Economics of Anti-Aging

[wurp]

Because he has the same overpowering incentive to do the work that investors would have to invest in it?

Because he's dedicated his life to longevity research and made many breakthroughs in the field?

Why in the world would you propose someone is a charlatan when they in fact have dedicated massive (and to some degree, successful) effort to the cause you're proposing they're being fraudulent about?

Re:Economics of Anti-Aging

[spun]

He never achieved his PhD in any conventional sense. He studied computer science as an undergrad at Cambridge. His bio, the way he touts himself, makes it appear he earned a PhD in biology from Cambridge, which he did not. He is not associated with Cambridge in any way, yet he weasel words things to make it easy for people to misinterpret his association with them. There are good reasons to believe he is a charlatan.

Re:Economics of Anti-Aging

[wurp]

First, I didn't say treat it as if it's a disease, I said treat it as if it's treatable.

Second, 'superstition' makes no sense in your play on words.

Finally, why in the world is it idiocy that we treat aging as if it can be treated? We already know some aspects of aging can be treated. It's just a complex chemical process (as are essentially all biological processes). To ignore the possibility of treating a process that will eventually kill each and every one of us if we don't get killed by something else first sure sounds like the height of idiocy to me.

What's worse, though, is the derision heaped upon people promoting the idea of fighting aging. That's why I said that Aubrey's public stand is important, even if he contributes nothing to the science.

Most were sure that heavier than air machines couldn't fly, no one could travel faster than sound, and travel through space was impossible less than a decade before each of those things happened.

Re:Economics of Anti-Aging

[Anonymous Coward]

Aubrey de Grey deserves a lot better than what you infer and your bias is certainly showing.

I might say that ultimately it is the science that is important rather than innuendo and supposition you spread but let me be clear about my understanding.

Aubrey de Grey was educated at Cambridge and his PhD is for writing a peer-reviewed book on the mitochondrial theory of aging which incorporates some esoteric, novel and ultimately very worthwhile concepts...which is why Cambridge University gave him a degree in the first place. Sounds like a PhD in biology to me.

He never achieved his PhD in any conventional sense? And the 'conventional' way to get a PhD is superior than self-applied, auto didactic study??

hmmmm.. it would seem to me that someone who has pushed themselves to reach the level of PhD, out of self-interest and dogged application of their own time, may just be a little more passionate and ultimately knowledgeable about the fields they are studying, than one who has been force fed and molly coddled along into producing mediocre work. by 'conventional' methods...

Re:Practical repurcussions

[Anonymous Coward]

No one says we have to keep making more people if the ones we have stop breaking. Infact, I think it would make the crisis better. THink about it, it would make every scientific field leap forward if people could continue studying or practicing for a thousand years. For example: if albert einstein were still alive today, imagine what else we may know about physics? Maybe the theory of relativity was just the tip of the iceberg.

Longevity Plan

[BigGar']

In your opinion, if I wanted to give my best effort to extending the number of years I'm alive, what would be the top things I should do?
I'll let you decide how many things to include.

Thank you
Gary

Re:Practical repurcussions

[jimicus]

No one says we have to keep making more people if the ones we have stop breaking.

This won't stop the menopause from happening, and the urge to reproduce is one of the most basic animal urges that exists.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[chihowa]

So let's say that you or some other scientist in the field figures out a way to actually get humans to live to 1000 years. Have you or anybody in your field considered that humans living that long would grossly exacerbate the current crisis concerning population and resources?

Even worst than that is the wide wealth disparity that it would create. Imagine a Citizen Kane or Bill Gates type who never has to stop amassing wealth. Life+70yrs for copyrights would also take on a new meaning. Imagine a 22 year old fresh out of school trying to compete for a job with a bored multizillionare with 25 PhDs who just wants a job (something to do) and doesn't need to get paid.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[CrimsonAvenger]

Have you or anybody in your field considered that humans living that long would grossly exacerbate the current crisis concerning population and resources?

Do people really still believe in the Population Bomb? Birth rate has been declining steadily for at least the last 40 years. If the trend continues, within 100 years, worldwide population growth will be negative.

Note that in Western Europe and the United States (and Canada, which really should just give up and become six more States), population growth rate is already negative. If not for immmigration, the USA would have had a smaller population last Census than the one before, for the first time ever.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[mhall119]

But with 1000 year life-spans, inter-stellar space travel becomes much less of an issue. A 10 year trip to Alpha Centauri consumes only 1% of your life, not 10%.

You

[Anonymous Coward]

Would you experiment those treatments in yourself?

Jason Pontin on de Grey

[spun]

I'm not saying he is a charlatan. It's just that I'd like to see some proof that he isn't. For instance, why does he do so much public speaking on the subject? What research does he actually do himself? How is his research funded?

What do his colleagues in the field think of him? Here is a great quote from Jason Pontin:

But what struck me is that De Grey is a troll. For all de Grey's vaulting ambitions, what Sherwin Nuland saw from the outside was pathetically circumscribed. In his waking life, de Grey is the ÂcomÂputer support to a research team; he dresses like a shabby graduate student and affects Rip Van Winkle's beard; he has no children; he has few interests outside the science of biogeronÂtology; he drinks too much beer.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[multisync]

Canada, which really should just give up and become six more States

Thank you, no, but if Oregon, Washington and Alaska wish to become provinces we'll consider it.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[Anonymous Coward]

What a negative series of statements.. and shortsighted too...or maybe the two are linked.

Bill Gates is a pretty poor example of a 'money monger' as he is giving away a good portion of his wealth, along with other hyper-wealthy individuals like Buffet, to try to make the world a better place.

With respect to competition for jobs, well.. all I can say is that if the old person has more experience and can do the job better.. than he should get it... why would a company hire a substandard, wet-behind-the-ears, nitwit when a better choice existed. I guess that means the younger folk will..goodness.. have to be innovative, competitive and show they deserve a chance.. wait.. seems that is exactly the situation we have today....so problem solved.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[nbates]

You mean "the urge to have sex is one of the most basic animal urges that exist"....

Quite different.

From what I know, advanced societies have the problem of not wanting to reproduce.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[DarkSarin]

Except this wouldn't be labor scarcity, but labor glut, and the traditional recourse for that has been war. Historically speaking of course. Of course, it hasn't happened very often, so we don't have a big sample, but the truth is that when there is a labor glut, poverty and crime spike, and there are a LOT of bored people. This often followed by revolution or the country gets scared and decides it is time to go to war to prevent revolution.

Labor glut is just as bad as labor scarcity. You want everyone to be gainfully employed, but you don't want too much of an over demand.

Re:Practical repurcussions

[Anonymous Coward]

And thank god for that, if the population rate really is declining. I hope it does go negative! There are already too many people on the planet, it would be a lot better with few of them.

Re:Telomerase and aging

[MindKata]

Research into Telomerase sounds like its got potential, but its still a special case example of generic research. I would like to know what research work is being done (or even just considered for funding?) into using new full genome sequencing, to carry out widespread comparative studies of hundreds (and even thousands) of older people who are in their 90s and older. Their genetic code may show many possibly important sections of DNA, which we can find computationally and then highlight these areas for deeper study. Its an additional broad brush approach so to speak, (extending this painting analogy, what I mean is we need to use more than just a small paintbrush to do the job. We also need to start broadly painting with buckets of paint thrown at the wall, to give us more starting points for more research).

Full genome comparisons of hundreds of very old peoples DNA seems like a good new milestone to set for the genome research, now the milestone of sequencing full genomes has been achieved. This research will obviously need refinement over time, but as the numbers of genomes to compare increases into many thousands of peoples DNA, we should be able to refine areas of interest.

Some people appear to have more robust genomes than others. It makes sense to study the oldest peoples genomes, to learn from their ability to withstand genetic damage from the environment. (It also makes sense to do massive comparative studies of the full genomes of people with all forms of cancers, to workout if there's also opposing patterns, which reduce the chances of old age. So by comparing the old age group with the cancer groups, we could computationally learn important areas which maybe susceptible to damage, plus learn areas of DNA that could be helped to prevent (and treat) cancers).