[extropy-chat] MIT Technology Review Announces $20, 000 SENS Challenge

[Joao Magalhaes]

I wonder what I would do with $20,000? Then again, get back to me when it 
reaches $100,000.

Just kidding,

Joao

At 06:36 PM 28/7/2005, you wrote:
>http://pontin.trblogs.com/archives/2005/07/the_sens_challe.html
>http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000557.php
>
>The plot thickens...engaging in Judo with Aubrey de Grey would appear to 
>be a losing proposition.
>
>Reason
>Founder, Longevity Meme
>
>--------------
>
>The frustration of Jason Pontin, editor of the MIT Technology Review, over 
>the inexplicable reluctance of A-list bioscientists to deliver a good 
>scientific critique of Aubrey de Grey's Strategies for Engineered 
>Negligible Senescence (SENS) has born fruit. From Pontin's latest post, we 
>have the announcement of the SENS Challenge:
>
>The most widely read story in Technology Review in 2005 was "Do You Want 
>to Live Forever?," a profile of Dr. Aubrey de Grey, a British theoretical 
>biologist and computer scientist at the University of Cambridge's 
>Department of Genetics.
>De Grey believes that aging, like a disease, can in principle be treated 
>and defeated. He proposes approaching aging as a problem in engineering 
>through something he calls "Strategies for Engineered Negligible 
>Senescence." SENS claims to identify the 7 causes of human aging and 
>describes how each cause might be circumvented. De Grey is also the 
>guiding genius behind The Methuselah Foundation, an organization which 
>offers monetary awards to biologists who make significant advances towards 
>reversing aging in mice.
>
>...
>
>In my reply to our readers, whilst conceding nothing, 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?
>
>Regardless of which explanation is correct, biogerontologists apparently 
>need an incentive to consider SENS. To that end, Technology Review is 
>announcing a prize for any molecular biologist working in the field of 
>aging who is willing to take up the challenge: submit an intellectually 
>serious argument that SENS is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned 
>debate, and you will be paid $20,000 if it convinces independent referees. 
>In the case that even $20,000 is insufficient to motivate the relevant 
>experts, we also invite contributions to the fund; anyone wishing to 
>pledge should contact me.
>
>Pontin is not pro-life-extension, needless to say - and, sadly, still 
>appears to be willing to describe Aubrey de Grey as "nuts." I don't agree 
>with a number of his opinions on the workings and nature of science, even 
>if he clearly understands where he should be going with respect to the 
>circulation of his magazine. However, if the Technology Review staff pull 
>this off, or even generate significant additional publicity for serious 
>attempts to greatly extend the healthy human life span, I might just be 
>willing to forgive some of their past transgressions.
>
>Go and read the full post for the terms of the SENS Challenge. You might 
>also find Aubrey de Grey's "The Curious Case of the Catatonic 
>Biogerontologists" to be well worth reading in the present context.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat