[Paleopsych] Tech. Rev.: (de Grey) Do You Want to Live Forever? (w. replies)
Premise Checker
checker at panix.com
Mon Jan 24 21:29:19 UTC 2005
Do You Want to Live Forever?
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/02/issue/feature_aging.asp?p=0
By Sherwin Nuland Febuary 2005
[replies beneath, including one by de Grey himself]
Wandering through the quadrangles and medieval
bastions of learning at the University of Cambridge one overcast
Sunday afternoon a few months ago, I found myself ruminating on how
this venerable place had been a crucible for the scientific revolution
that changed humankinds perceptions of itself and of the world. The
notion of Cambridge as a source of grand transformative concepts was
very much on my mind that day, because I had traveled to England to
meet a contemporary Cantabrigian who aspires to a historical role
similar to those enjoyed by Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and William
Harvey. Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey is convinced that he has
formulated the theoretical means by which human beings might live
thousands of yearsindefinitely, in fact.
Perhaps theoretical is too small a word. De Grey has mapped out his
proposed course in such detail that he believes it may be possible for
his objective to be achieved within as short a period as 25 years, in
time for many readers of Technology Review to avail themselves of its
formulationsand, not incidentally, in time for his 41-year-old self as
well. Like Bacon, de Grey has never stationed himself at a laboratory
bench to attempt a single hands-on experiment, at least not in human
biology. He is without qualifications for that, and makes no
pretensions to being anything other than what he is, a computer
scientist who has taught himself natural science. Aubrey de Grey is a
man of ideas, and he has set himself toward the goal of transforming
the basis of what it means to be human.
For reasons that his memory cannot now retrieve, de Grey has been
convinced since childhood that aging is, in his words, something we
need to fix. Having become interested in biology after marrying a
geneticist in 1991, he began poring over texts, and autodidacted until
he had mastered the subject. The more he learned, the more he became
convinced that the postponement of death was a problem that could very
well have real solutions and that he might be just the person to find
them. As he reviewed the possible reasons why so little progress had
been made in spite of the remarkable molecular and cellular
discoveries of recent decades, he came to the conclusion that the
problem might be far less difficult to solve than some thought; it
seemed to him related to a factor too often brushed under the table
when the motivations of scientists are discussed, namely the small
likelihood of achieving promising results within the period required
for academic advancementcareerism, in a word. As he puts it, High-risk
fields are not the most conducive to getting promoted quickly.
De Grey began reading the relevant literature in late 1995 and after
only a few months had learned so much that he was able to explain
previously unidentified influences affecting mutations in
mitochondria, the intracellular structures that release energy from
certain chemical processes necessary to cell function. Having
contacted an expert in this area of research who told him that he had
indeed made a new discovery, he published his first biological
research paper in 1997, in the peer-reviewed journal BioEssays (A
Proposed Refinement of the Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging,
de Grey, ADNJ, BioEssays 19(2)161166, 1997). By July 2000, further
assiduous application had brought him to what some have called his
eureka moment, the insight he speaks of as his realization that aging
could be described as a reasonably small set of accumulating and
eventually pathogenic molecular and cellular changes in our bodies,
each of which is potentially amenable to repair. This concept became
the theme of all the theoretical investigation he would do from that
moment on; it became the leitmotif of his life. He determined to
approach longevity as what can only be called a problem in
engineering. If it is possible to know all the components of the
variety of processes that cause animal tissues to age, he reasoned, it
might also be possible to design remedies for each of them.
All along the way, de Grey would be continually surprised at the
relative ease with which the necessary knowledge could be masteredor
at least, the ease with which he himself could master it. Here I must
issue a caveat, a variant of those seen in television commercials
featuring daredevilish stunts: Do not attempt this on your own. It is
extremely hazardous and requires special abilities. For if you can
take a single impression away from spending even a modicum of time
with Aubrey de Grey, it is that he is the possessor of special
abilities.
As he surveyed the literature, de Grey reached the conclusion that
there are seven distinct ingredients in the aging process, and that
emerging understanding of molecular biology shows promise of one day
providing appropriate technologies by which each of them might be
manipulatedperturbed, in the jargon of biologists. He bases his
certainty that there are only seven such factors on the fact that no
new factor has been discovered in some twenty years, despite the
flourishing state of research in the field known as biogerontology,
the science of aging; his certainty that he is the man to lead the
crusade for endless life is based on his conception that the
qualification needed to accomplish it is the mindset he brings to the
problem: the goal-driven orientation of an engineer rather than the
curiosity-driven orientation of the basic scientists who have made and
will continue to make the laboratory discoveries that he intends to
employ. He sees himself as the applied scientist who will bring the
benisons of molecular biology to practical use. In the analogous
terminology often used by historians of medicine, he is the clinician
who will bring the laboratory to the bedside.
And so, in order to achieve his goal of transforming our society, de
Grey has transformed himself. His day job, as he calls it, is
relatively modest; he is the computer support for a genetics research
team, and his entire official working space occupies a corner of its
small lab. And yet he has achieved international renown and more than
a little notoriety in the field of aging, not only for the boldness of
his theories, but also because of the forcefulness of his
proselytizing on their behalf. His stature has become such that he is
a factor to be dealt with in any serious discussion of the topic. De
Grey has documented his contributions in the scientific literature,
publishing scores of articles in an impressive array of journals,
including those of the quality of Trends in Biotechnology and Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, as well as contributing
commentary and letters to other publications like Science and
Biogerontology.
De Grey has been indefatigable as a missionary in his own cause,
joining the appropriate professional societies and evangelizing in
every medium available to him, including sponsoring his own
international symposium. Though he and his ideas may be sui generis,
he is hardly an isolated monkish figure content to harangue the
heavens and desert winds with his lonely philosophy. In addition to
everything else, he has a remarkable talent for organization and even
for his own unique brand of fellowship. The sheer output of his pen
and tongue is staggering, and every line of that bumper crop, whether
intended for the most scientifically sophisticated or for the general
reader, is delivered in the same linear, lucid, point-by-point style
that characterizes all his writings on life prolongation. Like a
skilled debater, he replies to arguments before they arise and hammers
at his opposition with a forceful rhetoric that has just enough
dismissivenessand sometimes even castigationto betray his impatience
with stragglers in the march toward extreme longevity.
De Grey is a familiar figure at meetings of scientific societies,
where he has earned the respect of many gerontologists and that new
variety of theoreticians known as futurists. Not only has his work put
him at the forefront of a field that might best be called theoretical
biogerontology, but he swims close enough to the mainstream that some
of its foremost researchers have agreed to add their names to his
papers and letters as coauthors, although they may not agree with the
full range of his thinking. Among the most prominent are such highly
regarded figures as Bruce Ames of the University of California and the
University of Chicagos Leonid Gavrilov and S. Jay Olshansky. Their
attitude toward de Grey is perhaps best expressed by Olshansky, who is
a senior research scientist in epidemiology and biostatistics: Im a
big fan of Aubrey; I love debating him. We need him. He challenges us
and makes us expand our way of thinking. I disagree with his
conclusions, but in science thats okay. Thats what advances the field.
De Grey has by his vigorous efforts brought together a cohort of
responsible scientists who see just enough theoretical value in his
work to justify not only their engagement but also their cautious
encouragement. As Gregory Stock, a futurist of biologic technology
currently at UCLA, pointed out to me, de Greys proposals create
scientific and public interest in every aspect of the biology of
aging. Stock, too, has lent his name to several of de Greys papers.
De Grey enjoys increasing fame as well. He is often called upon when
journalists need a quote on antiaging science, and he has been the
subject of profiles in publications as varied as Fortune, Popular
Science, and Londons Daily Mail. His tireless efforts at thrusting
himself and his theories into the vanguard of a movement in pursuit of
a goal of eternal fascination to the human mind have put him among the
most prominent proponents of antiaging science in the world. His
timing is perfect. As the baby boomersperhaps the most determinedly
self-improving (and self-absorbed) generation in historyare now
approaching or have reached their early 60s, there is a plenitude of
eager seekers after the death-defiant panaceas he promises. De Grey
has become more than a man; he is a movement.
I should declare here that I have no desire to live beyond the life
span that nature has granted to our species. For reasons that are
pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social,
emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that
both individual fulfillment and the ecological balance of life on this
planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that
we do. I am equally committed to making that age as close to our
biologically probable maximum of approximately 120 years as modern
biomedicine can achieve, and also to efforts at decreasing and
compressing the years of morbidity and disabilities now attendant on
extreme old age. But I cannot imagine that the consequences of doing a
single thing beyond these efforts will be anything but baleful, not
only for each of us as an individual, but for every other living
creature in our world. Another action I cannot imagine is enrolling
myselfas de Grey haswith Alcor, the cryonics company that will, for a
price, preserve a customers brain or more until that hoped-for day
when it can be brought back to some form of life.
With this worldview, is it any wonder that I would be intrigued by an
Aubrey de Grey? What would it be like to come face to face with such a
man? Not to debate hima task for which, as a clinical surgeon, I would
in any case be scientifically unqualifiedbut just to sound him out, to
see how he behaves in an ordinary situation, to speak of my concerns
and his responsesto take his measure. To me, his philosophies are
outlandish. To him, mine would seem equally so.
With all of this in mind, I contacted de Grey via e-mail this past
fall, and received a response that was both gracious and welcoming.
Addressing me by first name, he not only had no hesitation in offering
to give up the better part of two days to speak with me, but moreover
suggested that we spend them close to the lubricating effects of
invigorating fluids, as follows:
I hope you like a good English beer, as that is one of the main
(open) secrets of my boundless energy as well as a good part of my
intellectual creativity (or so I like to think...). A good plan (by
which I mean a plan that has been well tested over the years!) is
to meet at 11:00 a.m. Monday 18th in the Eagle, the most famous pub
in Cambridge for a variety of reasons which I can point out to you.
From there we may (weather permitting) be able to go punting on the
Cam, an activity with which I fell in love at first sight on
arriving here in 1982 and which all visitors seem to find
unforgettable. We will be able to talk for as long as you like, and
if there is reason to meet again on the Tuesday I can arrange that
too.
The message would prove to be characteristic, including its hint of
immodesty. And in a similar vintage was his response when I expressed
hesitation about punting, based on friends tales of falling into the
Cam on a chilly autumnal day: Evidently, your friends did it without
expert guidance. As I learned, de Grey is not a man who allows himself
to be less than expert at anything to which he decides to devote those
prodigious energies so enthusiastically trumpeted in the e-mail, nor
does he allow himself to hide his expertness under a bushel.
Of course, to conceive of oneself as the herald and instrument of the
transformation of death and aging requires a supreme self-confidence,
and de Grey is the most unabashedly self-confident of men. Soon after
we met, this unexampled man told me that One must have a somewhat
inflated opinion of oneself if success is to crown such great
endeavors. I have that! he added emphatically. By the time he and I
had said our good-byes after a total of 10 hours together over a
period of two days, I was certain many would accept his self-estimate.
Whether one chooses to believe that he is a brilliant and prophetic
architect of futuristic biology or merely a misguided and nutty
theorist, there can be no doubt about the astonishing magnitude of his
intellect.
De Grey calls his program Strategies for Engineered Negligible
Senescence, which permits him to say that it makes SENS to embark upon
it. Here, in no particular order, follow his seven horsemen of death
and the formulations for the breaking of each animal and its rider.
(Those seeking more detailed information might wish to consult de
Greys website: http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/index.html.)
1. Loss and atrophy or degeneration of cells. This element of aging is
particularly important in tissues where cells cannot replace
themselves as they die, such as the heart and brain. De Grey would
treat it primarily by the introduction of growth factors to stimulate
cell division or by periodic transfusion of stem cells specifically
engineered to replace the types that have been lost.
2. Accumulation of cells that are not wanted. These are (a) fat cells,
which tend to proliferate and not only replace muscle but also lead to
diabetes by diminishing the bodys ability to respond to the pancreatic
hormone insulin, and (b) cells that have become senescent, which
accumulate in the cartilage of our joints. Receptors on the surface of
such cells are susceptible to immune bodies that de Grey believes
scientists will in time learn how to generate, or to other compounds
that may make the cells destroy themselves without affecting others
that do not have those distinctive receptors.
3. Mutations in chromosomes. The most damaging consequence of cell
mutation is the development of cancer. The immortality of cancer cells
is related to the behavior of the telomere, the caplike structure
found on the end of every chromosome, which decreases in length each
time the cell divides and therefore seems to be involved with the
cells mortality. If we could eliminate the gene that makes
telomerasethe enzyme that maintains and lengthens telomeresthe cancer
cell would die. De Greys solution for this problem is to replace a
persons stem cells every 10 or so years with ones engineered not to
carry that gene.
4. Mutations in mitochondria. Mitochondria are the micromachines that
produce energy for the cells activities. They contain small amounts of
DNA, which are particularly susceptible to mutations since they are
not housed in the chromosomes of the nucleus. De Grey proposes copying
the genes (of which there are 13) from the mitochondrial DNA and then
putting those copies into the DNA of the nucleus, where they will be
far safer from mutation-causing influences.
5. The accumulation of junk within the cell. The junk in question is a
collection of complex material that results from the cells breakdown
of large molecules. Intracellular structures called lysosomes are the
primary microchambers for such breakdown; the junk tends to collect in
them, causing problems in the function of certain types of cells.
Atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, is the biggest
manifestation of these complications. To solve this difficulty, de
Grey proposes to provide the lysosomes with genes to produce the extra
enzymes required to digest the unwelcome material. The source of these
genes will be certain soil bacteria, an innovation based on the
observation that ground that contains buried animal flesh does not
show accumulation of degraded junk.
6. The accumulation of junk outside the cell. The fluid in which all
cells are bathedcalled extracellular fluidmay come to contain
aggregates of protein material that it is incapable of breaking down.
The result is the formation of a substance called amyloid, which is
the material found in the brains of people with Alzheimers disease. To
counter this, de Grey proposes vaccination with an as-yet undeveloped
substance that might stimulate the immune system to produce cells to
engulf and eat the offending material.
7. Cross-links in proteins outside the cell. The extracellular fluid
contains many flexible protein molecules that exist unchanged for long
periods of time, whose function is to give certain tissues such
qualities as elasticity, transparence, or high tensile strength. Over
a lifetime, occasional chemical reactions gradually affect these
molecules in ways that change their physical and/or chemical
qualities. Among these changes is the development of chemical bonds
called cross-links between molecules that had previously moved
independently of one another. The result is a loss of elasticity or a
thickening of the involved tissue. If the tissue is the wall of an
artery, for example, the loss of distensibility may lead to high blood
pressure. De Greys solution to this problem is to attempt to identify
chemicals or enzymes capable of breaking cross-links without injuring
anything else.
It must be obvious that, even condensed and simplified as they are
here, these seven factors are enormously complex biological problems
with even more complex proposed solutions. At least some of those
solutions may prove inadequate, and others may be impossible to
implement. Moreover, de Greys descriptions are sprinkled with such
vague phrases as growth factors and stimulate the immune system, which
might prove to be little more than slogans, as when he invokes
yet-to-be-discovered chemicals or enzymes capable of breaking
cross-links without injuring anything else. In addition, it must be
emphasized that researchers have not come close to solving a single
one of the seven problems. In the case of several, there have been
promising results. Indeed, research on extracellular cross-links has
already yielded several drug candidates: a company called Alteon, in
Parsippany, NY, has begun clinical trials of molecules that it says
can reverse the effects of some conditions associated with age. In the
cases of some of the other problems de Grey identifies, howeversuch as
the prevention of telomere lengthening or the transfer of
mitochondrial DNA to the nucleusit is fair to say that molecular
biologists can only speculate about the day, if ever, when these
attempts will come to fruition.
But de Grey is unfazed by this incompleteness. It is his thesis that
time is being lost, and nothing is accomplished by pessimism about
possibilities. For de Grey, pie in the sky, as one biogerontologist I
consulted called his formulations, is a tasty delicacy whose promise
already nourishes his soul.
But others can challenge de Greys science. My purpose was something
else entirely. I found myself wondering what sort of man would devote
the labors of an incandescently brilliant mind and a seemingly
indefatigable constitution to such a project. Not only does the
science seem more than a little speculative, but even more speculative
is the assumption on which the entire undertaking is basednamely, that
it is a good thing for the men and women now populating the earth to
have the means to live indefinitely.
I arrived at the Eagle a few minutes early on the appointed day, which
gave me time to record some of the words on the memorial plaque near
the entryway, which read An inn has existed at this site since 1667,
called Eagle and Child....During their research in the early 1950s,
Watson and Crick used the Eagle as a place to relax and discuss their
theories whilst refreshing themselves with ale.
Thus properly steeped in history and atmosphere, I entered the pub
just in time to see de Grey through the window, parking his ancient
bicycle across the narrow street. Narrow, in fact, precisely describes
the man himself, who stands six feet tall, weighs 147 pounds. His
spareness is accentuated by a mountain-man chestnut beard extending
down to mid-thorax that seems never to have seen a comb or brush. He
was dressed like an unkempt graduate student, uncaring of tailoring
considerations of any sort, wearing a hip-length black mackinaw-type
coat that was borderline shabby. Adorning his head was a knitted
woolen hat of a half-dozen striped transverse colors, which he told me
had been crafted by his wife 14 years ago. As if to prove its age, the
frazzled headgear (which was knitted with straplike extensions that
tied under the chin) was not without a few holes. When he removed it,
I saw that de Greys long straight hair was held in a ponytail by a
circular band of bright red wool. But in spite of the visual gestalt,
de Grey cannot disguise the fact that he is a boyishly handsome man.
As for his voice, being the product of a private school followed by
Harrow and then Cambridge, it hardly needs to be described. To an
American, he is of rare fauna, and his distinctiveness was
catch-your-eye apparent even among his Cambridge colleagues.
Having seen a photo of de Grey on his website, I was prepared for his
beard, spareness, and even his laissez-faire attitude toward
externals. But I was not prepared for the intensity of those keen
blue-gray eyes, nor for the pallor of the face in which they are so
gleamingly set. His expression was one of concentrated zeal, even
evangelism, and it never let up during our subsequent six hours of
nonstop conversation across the narrow pub table that separated us. In
the photo, his eyes are so gently warm that I had commented on them in
one of my e-mails. But I would see none of that warmth during the 10
hours we spent together, though it reappeared in the 15 minutes during
which we chatted with Adelaide de Grey in a courtyard between
laboratory buildings after our Monday session at the Eagle.
Adelaide de Grey (née Carpenter) is a highly accomplished American
geneticist and an expert electron microscopist who, at 60, is 19 years
older than her husband. They met early in 1990, midway through her
Cambridge sabbatical from a faculty position at the University of
California, San Diego, and were married in April 1991. Neither of them
has ever wanted to have children. There are already lots of people who
are very good at that, explained Aubrey when the subject came up. Its
either that or do a lot of stuff you wouldnt do if you had children,
because you wouldnt have the time. Raised as the only child of an
artistic and somewhat eccentric single mother, already at the age of
eight or nine he had determined to do something with his life that
would make a difference, something that he and perhaps no one else was
equipped to accomplish. Why fritter away resources in directions that
others might pursue just as well or better? With that in mind no less
now than when he was a child, de Grey has trimmed from his days and
thoughts any activity he deems superfluous or distracting from the
goals he sets for himself. He and Adelaide are two highly focusedsome
would say drivenpeople of such apparent similarity of motivation and
goals that their work is the overwhelming catalytic force of their
lives.
And yet, each member of this uncommon pair is touchingly tender with
the other. Even my brief 15 minutes with them was sufficient to
observe the softness that comes into de Greys otherwise determined
visage when Adelaide is near, and her similar response. I suspect that
his website photo was taken while he was either looking at or thinking
of her.
Adelaide, although at five foot two much shorter than her husband,
looks his perfect sartorial partner: she dresses in a similar way and
is apparently just as uncaring about her appearance or grooming. One
can easily imagine them on one of their dates, as described by Aubrey.
Walking from the small flat where they have lived since they married
almost 14 years ago, entering the local laundromat, talking science as
the machines beat up on their well-worn clothes. They are hardly bons
vivants, nor would they want to be; they quite obviously like things
just the way they are. They appear to care not at all for the usual
getting and spending, nor even for some of the normative emotional
rewards of living in our worldall at a time when the name of Aubrey de
Grey has become associated with changing that world in unimaginable
ways.
But six uninterrupted hours of compelling talk (most of it pouring out
of him in floods of volubility let loose by intermittent questions or
comments) and the consumption of numerous pints of Abbots ale still
awaited us before I would meet Adelaide and be taken to the laboratory
where de Grey performs the duties of his day job. Very soon after we
began speaking, an hour before noon on that first day, I asked him why
his proposals raise the hackles of so many gerontologists. And right
there, at the very outset of our discussions, he replied with the
dismissive impatience that would reappear whenever I brought up one or
another of the many objections that either a specialist or layperson
might have regarding the notion of extending life for millennia.
Pretty much invariably, he curtly told me, their objections are based
on simple ignorance. Among the bands of that spectrum that de Grey
will not confine to a bushel is his feeling that his is one of the few
minds capable of comprehending the biology of his formulations, the
scientific and societal logic upon which they are based, and the
vastness of their potential benefits to our species.
I wanted de Grey to justify his conviction that living for thousands
of years is a good thing. Certainly, if one can accept such a
viewpoint, everything else follows from it: the push to research
beyond the elucidation of the aging process; the gigantic investment
of talent and money to accomplish and apply such research; the
transformation of a culture based on the expectation of a finite and
relatively short lifetime to one without horizons; the odd fact that
every adult human being would be physiologically the same age (because
rejuvenation would be the inevitable result of de Greys proposals);
the effects on family relationshipsit goes on and on.
De Greys response to such a challenge comes in the perfectly formed
and articulated sentences that he uses in all his writings. He has the
gift of expressing himself both verbally and in print with such
clarity and completeness that a listener finds himself entranced by
the flow of seemingly logical statements following one after the
other. In speech as in his directed life, de Grey never rambles.
Everything he says is pertinent to his argument, and so well
constructed that one becomes fascinated with the edifice being formed
before ones eyes. So true is this that I could not but fix my full
attention on him as he spoke. Though many possible distractions arose
during the hours in which we confronted each other across that pub
table, as people came and went, ate and drank, talked and laughed, and
smoked and coughed, I never once found myself looking anywhere but
directly at him, except when going to fetch fooda full lunch for me
and only potato chips for himor another pint. It was only when
reflecting upon the assumptions on which his argument is based that a
listener discovers that he must insert the word seemingly before
logical in the second sentence of the present paragraph. Here follows
an aliquot of de Greys reasoning:
The reason we have an imperative, we have a duty, to develop these
therapies as soon as possible is to give future generations the
choice. People are entitled, have a human right, to live as long as
they can; people have a duty to give people the opportunity to live
as long as they want to. I think its just a straightforward
extension of the duty-of-care concept. People are entitled to
expect to be treated as they would treat themselves.
It follows directly and irrevocably as an extension of the golden
rule. If we hesitate and vacillate in developing life-extension
therapy, there will be some cohort to whom we will deny the option
to live much longer than we do. We have a duty not to deny people
that option.
When I raised the question of ethical or moral objections to the
extreme extension of life, the reply was similarly seemingly logical
and to the point:
If there were such objections, they would certainly count in this
argument. What does count is that the right to live as long as you
choose is the worlds most fundamental right. And this is not
something Im ordaining. This seems to be something that all moral
codes, religious or secular, seem to agree on: that the right to
life is the most important right.
And then, to what would seem the obvious objection that such moral
codes assume our current life span and not one lasting thousands of
years:
Its an incremental thing. Its not a question of how long life
should be, but whether the end of life should be hastened by action
or inaction.
And there it isthe ultimate leap of ingenious argumentation that would
do a sophist proud: by our inaction in not pursuing the possible
opportunity of extending life for thousands of years, we are hastening
death.
No word of the foregoing quotes has been
edited or changed in any way. De Grey speaks in formed paragraphs and
pages. Many readers of Technology Review are all too familiar with how
garbled we often sound when quoted directly. Not so de Grey, who
speaks with the same precision with which he writes. Admittedly, some
may consider his responses to have the sound of a carefully prepared
sermon or sales pitch because he has answered similar questions many
times before, but all thought of such considerations disappears when
one spends a bit of time with him and realizes that he pours forth
every statement in much the same way, whether responding to some
problem he has faced a dozen times before or giving a tour of the
genetics lab where he works. His every thought comes out perfectly
shaped, to the amazement of the bemused observer.
De Grey does not fool himself about the vastness of the efforts that
will be required to make the advances in science and technology
necessary to attain his objective. But equally, he does not seem fazed
by my suggestion that his optimism might simply be based on the fact
that, having never worked as a bench researcher in biology, he may not
appreciate or even understand the nature of complex biological
systems, nor fully take into account the possible consequences of
tinkering with what he sees as individual components in a machine.
Unlike engineers, the adoption of whose methodology de Grey considers
his main conceptual contribution to solving the problems of aging,
biologists do not approach physiological events as distinct entities
that have no effect on any others. Each of de Greys interventions will
very likely result in unpredictable and incalculable responses in the
biochemistry and physics of the cells he is treating, not to mention
their extracellular milieu and the tissues and organs of which they
are a part. In biology, everything is interdependent; everything is
affected by everything else. Though we study phenomena in isolation to
avoid complicating factors, those factors come into play with a
vengeance when in vitro becomes in vivo. The fearsome concerns are
many: a little lengthening of the telomere here, a bit of genetic
material from a soil bacterium there, a fistful of stem cellsthe next
thing you know, it all explodes in your face.
He replied to all this as to so much else, whether it be the threat of
overpopulation, the effect on relationships within families and whole
societies, or the need to find employment for vibrantly healthy people
who are a thousand years old: we will deal with these problems as they
come up. We will make the necessary adjustments, whether in the realm
of potential cellular havoc or of the tortuosities of economic
necessity. He believes that each problem can be retouched and remedied
as it becomes recognized.
De Grey has some interesting notions of human nature. He insists that,
on the one hand, it is basic to humankind to want to live forever
regardless of consequences, while on the other it is not basic to want
to have children. When I protested that the two most formative
instincts of all living things are to survive and to pass on their
DNA, he quickly made good use of the one and denied the existence of
the other. Bolstering his argument with the observation that many
peoplelike Adelaide and himselfchoose not to have children, he
replied, not without a hint of petulance and some small bit of excited
waving of his hands,
Your precept is that we all have the fundamental impulse to
reproduce. The incidence of voluntary childlessness is exploding.
Therefore the imperative to reproduce is not actually so deep
seated as psychologists would have us believe. It may simply be
that it was the thing to dothe more traditional thing. My point of
view is that a large part of it may simply be indoctrination....Im
not in favor of giving young girls dolls to play with, because it
may perpetuate the urge to motherhood.
De Grey has commented in several fora on his conviction that, given
the choice, the great majority of people would choose life extension
over having children and the usual norms of family life. This being
so, he says, far fewer children would be born. He did not hesitate to
say the same to me:
We will realize there is an overpopulation problem, and if we have
the sense well decide to fix it [by not reproducing] sooner rather
than later, because the sooner we fix it the more choice well have
about how we live and where we live and how much space we will have
and all that. Therefore, the question is, what will we do? Will we
decide to live a long time and have fewer children, or will we
decide to reject these rejuvenation therapies in order that we can
have children? It seems pretty damn clear to me that well take the
former option, but the point is that I dont know and I dont need to
know.
Of course, de Greys reason for not needing to know is that same
familiar imperative he keeps returning to, the imperative that
everyone is entitled to choice regardless of the possible
consequences. What we need to know, he argues, can be found out after
the fact and dealt with when it appears. Without giving humankind the
choice, however, we deprive it of its most basic liberty. It should
not be surprising that a man as insistently individualisticand as
uncommon a sortas he would emphasize freedom of personal choice far
more than the potentially toxic harvest that might result from
cultivating that dangerous seed in isolation. As with every other of
his formulations, this onethe concept of untrammeled freedom of choice
for the individualis taken out of the context of its biological and
societal surroundings. Like everything else, it is treated in vitro
rather than in vivo.
In campaigns that occur across the length of several continents, de
Greys purpose is only secondarily to overcome resistance to his
theories. His primary aim is to publicize himself and his formulations
as widely as possible, not for the sake of personal glory but as a
potential means of raising the considerable funding that will be
necessary to carry out the research that needs to be done if his plans
are to stand any chance of so much as partial success. He has laid out
a schedule projecting the timeline on which he would like to see
certain milestones reached.
The first of these milestones would be to rejuvenate mice. De Grey
would extend the life span of a two-year-old mouse that might
ordinarily live one more year by three years. He believes funding of
around $100 million a year will make this feasible 10 years from now;
almost certainly not as soon as seven years; but very likely...less
than 20 years. Such an accomplishment, de Grey believes, will
kick-start a war on aging and be the trigger for enormous social
upheaval. In an article for the Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences [de Grey et al., 959: 452462, 2002], which lists seven
coauthors after his own name, de Grey writes, We contend that the
impact on public opinion and (inevitably) public policy of unambiguous
aging-reversal in mice would be so great that whatever work remained
necessary at that time to achieve adequate somatic gene therapy would
be hugely accelerated. Not only that, he asserts, but the public
enthusiasm following upon such a feat will cause many people to begin
making life choices based on the probability that they, too, will
reach a proportional number of years. Moreover, when death from a
disease like influenza, for example, is considered premature at the
age of 200, the urgent need to solve the problems of infectious
disease will massively increase government and drug company funding in
that area.
In addition to accelerating demand for research, the tripling of a
middle-aged mouses remaining life span would bring in entirely new
sources of funding. Because governments and drug companies tend to
favor research that promises useful results in a relatively short
time, de Grey is not counting on them as a source. He is relying on an
infusion of private money to supply the funds (significantly more than
the cost of reversing aging in mice) that it will take to successfully
fight his war against aging in humans. De Grey believes that once
aging has been reversed in mice, billionaires will come forward,
intent on living as long as possible.
Is it likely that the photograph of a long-lived mouse on the front
page of every newspaper in the world would be greeted with the
unalloyed enthusiasm of a unanimous public? I doubt it. More probably,
acclaim would be balanced by horror. Ethicists, economists,
sociologists, members of the clergy, and many worried scientists could
be counted on to join huge numbers of thoughtful citizens in a
counterreaction. But of course, if we are to accept de Greys first
principle, that the desire to live forever trumps every other factor
in human decision-making, then self-interestor what some might call
narcissismwill win out in the end.
De Grey projects that 15 years after we have rejuvenated mice we might
begin to reverse aging in humans. Early, limited success in extending
the human life span will be followed by successive, more dramatic
breakthroughs, so that humans now living could reach what de Grey
calls life extension escape velocity. De Grey concedes that it might
be 100 years before we begin to significantly extend human life. What
he does not concede is that it is more likely not to happen at all. He
cannot seem to imagine that the odds are heavily against him. And he
cannot imagine that not only the odds but society itself may be
against him. He will provide any listener or reader with a string of
reasons that are really rationalizations to explain why most
mainstream gerontologists remain so conspicuously absent from the
ranks of those cheering him on. He has safeguarded himself against the
informed criticism that should give him cause to rethink some of his
proposals. He has accomplished this self-protection by constructing a
personal worldview in which he is inviolate. He refuses to budge a
millimeter; he will not give ground to the possibility that any of the
barriers to his success may prove insuperable.
All this makes de Grey sound unlikable. But a major factor behind his
success at attracting a following has less to do with his science than
with himself. As I discovered during our two sessions at the Eagle, it
is impossible not to like de Grey. Despite his unhesitant verbal
trashing of those who disagree with him, there is a certain untouched
sweetness in the man, which, combined with his lack of care for
outward appearance and the sincerity of his commitment to the goals
that animate his life, are so disarming that the entire picture is one
of the disingenuousness of genius, rather than of the self-promotion
of the remote, false messiah. His likability was pointed out even by
his detractors. It is a quality not to be expected in such an
obviously odd and driven duck.
But the most likable of eccentrics are sometimes the most dangerous.
Many decades ago in my naïveté and ignorance, I thought that the
ultimate destruction of our planet would be by the neutral power of
celestial catastrophe: collision with a gigantic meteor, the burning
out of the sunthat sort of thing. In time, I came to believe that the
end of days would be ushered in by the malevolence of a mad dictator
who would unleash an arsenal of explosive or biological weaponry:
nuclear bombs, engineered microörganismsthat sort of thing. But my
notion of that sort of thing has been changing. If we are to be
destroyed, I am now convinced that it will not be a neutral or
malevolent force that will do us in, but one that is benevolent in the
extreme, one whose only motivation is to improve us and better our
civilization. If we are ever immolated, it will be by the efforts of
well-meaning scientists who are convinced that they have our best
interests at heart. We already know who they are. They are the DNA
tweakers who would enhance us by allowing parents to choose the
genetic makeup of their descendants unto every succeeding generation
ad infinitum, heedless of the possibility that breeding out variety
may alter factors necessary for the survival of our species and the
health of its relationship to every form of life on earth; they are
the biogerontologists who study caloric restriction in mice and
promise us the extension by 20 percent of a peculiarly nourished
existence; they are those other biogerontologists who emerge from
their laboratories of molecular science every evening optimistic that
they have come just a bit closer to their goal of having us live much
longer, downplaying the unanticipated havoc at both the cellular and
societal level that might be wrought by their proposed manipulations.
And finally, it is the unique and strangely alluring figure of Aubrey
de Grey, who, orating, writing, and striding tirelessly through our
midst with his less than fully convinced sympathizers, proclaims like
the disheveled herald of a new-begotten future that our most
inalienable right is to have the choice of living as long as we wish.
With the passion of a single-minded zealot crusading against time, he
has issued the ultimate challenge, I believe, to our entire concept of
the meaning of humanness.
Paradoxically, his clarion call to action is the message neither of a
madman nor a bad man, but of a brilliant, beneficent man of goodwill,
who wants only for civilization to fulfill the highest hopes he has
for its future. It is a good thing that his grand design will almost
certainly not succeed. Were it otherwise, he would surely destroy us
in attempting to preserve us.
Sherwin Nuland is clinical professor of surgery at Yale Universitys
School of Medicine and teaches bioethics. He is the author of How We
Die, which won the National Book Award in 1994, and Leonardo da Vinci.
He has written for many magazines, including the New Yorker. Over
three decades, he has cared for around 10,000 patients.
-------------
Aubrey de Grey Responds
http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/01/wo/wo_degrey0101805.asp?p=0
By Aubrey de Grey January 18, 2005
[Several e-messages added beneath.]
From the Forums:
There has been [3]a long discussion about Technology Review's column
by Editor-in-Chief Jason Pontin. You can also view his open letter to
those who objected to the coverage of de Grey.
Related Stories:
Jason Pontin, Technology Review's Editor-in-Chief, and Brad
King, Technology Review's Web editor, have invited me to respond to
the trio of articles about me and my work that appear in the February
2005 issue of Technology Review with this online-only piece, in
addition to a short "letter to the editor" from me that will appear in
the print edition.
Dr. Sherwin Nuland's article covers three topics: (a) me, (b) the
desirability of greatly postponing aging, and (c) the feasibility of
doing so. In the time he and I spent together we discussed (c) very
little indeed, not least because, as a physician rather than a
biologist, Nuland well appreciated that he is not equipped to evaluate
the difficulty of developing technologies that even I do not expect to
be available to humans for at least 20 years. He notes this as
follows:
"But others can challenge de Grey's science. My purpose was
something else entirely.".
For reasons that remain obscure, however, Nuland later changes his
mind and takes it upon himself to give a reason (not mentioned during
our discussions, needless to say) why we will probably never postpone
aging much:
"Unlike engineers, the adoption of whose methodology de Grey
considers his main conceptual contribution to solving the problems
of aging, biologists do not approach physiological events as
distinct entities that have no effect on any others. Each of de
Grey's interventions will very likely result in unpredictable and
incalculable responses the next thing you know, it all explodes in
your face."
Engineers reading his article may beg to differ concerning whether
they can successfully manipulate systems consisting of mutually
interacting subsystems, and the briefest consultation of my
publications will reveal that it is precisely the management of those
interactions, by the judicious choice of which places to intervene,
that defines my approach.
Most upmarket writers, having hit belatedly on a new reason why their
subject is deluded, might have thought to raise it with that subject
before risking committing such a serious error -- by some way the
worst in his article, overshadowing a variety of overstatements of how
far we currently are from developing some of the components of my SENS
scheme.
Or if not the writer, at least the magazine's staff. By contrast, the
Technology Review staff instead chose to use this offhand evaluation
as the foundation for a commentary piece. They first compliment
Nuland's ability to judge my science even more effusively than Nuland
compliments my intellect:
"Sherwin Nuland would not be satisfied by anything less than
rigorous scientific reasoning and evidence. Indeed, it's hard to
imagine a writer more qualified to profile the eccentric de Grey."
And then, overlooking the facts that Nuland noted just the opposite
(see above) and that his article duly offers no specifics whatsoever
to back up his view that aging is essentially immutable, they buy his
assertion of the impossibility of major life extension as uncritically
as a child buys an ice cream -- not quite what one would expect from
the staff of a serious technology publication.
Nuland is amply qualified, however, to comment on the desirability of
defeating aging -- but, curiously, he doesn't do so. He notes that he
raised most of the usual concerns with me, but rather than provide or
comment on my responses (which the reader can find [5]here) he merely
describes the style in which I deliver them.
The only aspect of my views on this that appears in the article is the
ethical one (we have a duty to save lives). He makes only two errors
in this part of the article (I, in fact, regard the choice of future
global society, not the individual, as paramount and I view the role
of philanthropy in advancing this work as relevant mainly to research
on mice); thus, his only major failure is to recognize the
contradictions inherent in his own position.
Here is a telling quote:
"I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and
the ecological balance of life on this planet are best served by
dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do. I am equally
committed to making that age as close to our biologically probable
maximum of approximately 120 years as modern biomedicine can
achieve, and also to efforts at decreasing and compressing the
years of morbidity and disabilities now attendant on extreme old
age.
"But I cannot imagine that the consequences of doing a single thing
beyond these efforts will be anything but baleful, not only for
each of us as an individual, but for every other living creature in
our world."
I trust that if Nuland's goals are achieved soon enough for him, such
that he reaches the age of 119 in the same fine shape that he is in
today, he will not mysteriously forget to buy that cyanide pill to
place at his bedside for the fateful moment when he wakes to find
himself transformed, Cinderella-like, into a 120-year old and thus a
burden on society and on himself -- but I'm not holding my breath.
Comment on February's editorial is superfluous. Pontin is as desperate
as Nuland and the Technology Review staff are to put the real issues
out of his mind, but unlike them he does not take the trouble to cloak
this in careful words; the editorial speaks for itself all too well.
What can we conclude, observing three such egregious departures from
normal logical standards by educated adults?
I can identify only one explanation: most of society is in a pro-aging
trance. This is no surprise: after all, aging is extremely horrible
and until a few years ago could indeed be regarded as probably
immutable for a very long time indeed. Hence, a reasonable tactic was
to put its horror out of one's mind, however absurd the logical
contortions required.
Just as stage hypnotists' subjects provide sincere and lucid
justifications for any false statement that they have been instructed
is true, so most of us (not having dared to consider in detail whether
aging might recently have come within our technological range)
energetically defend the indefinite perpetuation of what it is in fact
humanity's primary duty to eliminate as soon as possible.
Some people find stage hypnotists highly entertaining. I don't -- not
any more, at least.
References
3. http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=1001
-------------
http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=1001
Against Transcendence
When technology appropriates the transcendental it becomes science
fiction. Technology is most useful when it is most human.
_________________________________________________________________
Posted 1/21/2005 7:12:43 AM by [33]C Wade
Subject: Disappointed
After reading your editorial, and your apology where yet again you
haven't got your facts right re de Gray, I'm seriously questioning the
credibility of this publication. If you are so free to make claims
that are monumentally incorrect (several times!) or have nothing to do
with the agenda of this publication how can you possibly guarantee
that other articles etc are not bias or factually flawed.
Readers like myself rely on publications such as Technology Review to
provide them an accurate insight into a world I don't have time to
research. That's why I pay Tech Review a subscription. I don't pay for
such crass bias, and I don't pay for personal attacks or conjecture.
I must concur with an earlier post in this Forum... I suggest (Jason
Pontin) you resign.
Perhaps a Tabloid, or the Fox Network will pick you up.
Posted 1/16/2005 8:32:38 AM by [34]Aubrey de Grey
Subject: Some corrections
Jason Pontin writes:
> 3. Finally, and I write this with a little trepidation, many
> of your posts reveal a degree of misinformation about
> Mr. de Grey's accomplishments and publications.
His trepidation is justified. For the record:
- My Ph.D. (yes, I do have one) was awarded for my
biogerontology work.
- Both my articles in Trends in Biotechnology, like all
papers in that journal, were peer-reviewed by any
definition.
- My role at Genetics is 40% computer support, 60%
gerontologist, as is described in more detail at http://
www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/funding.htm
For my view of the care with which Mr. Pontin, Dr. Nuland
and TR staff have reached their conclusions regarding my
scientific views, I refer readers to the piece Mr. Pontin
mentions at the top of his letter, as I see he says it will
appear shortly. Further comment from me on the rest of
Mr. Pontin's editorial and open letter is clearly unnecessary.
Aubrey de Grey
Posted 1/16/2005 3:37:56 AM by [35]Samuel H. Kenyon
Subject: aging doesn't just happen
Mr. Pontin's quick response and apparently serious reply is
appreciated. I just want to say (and I'm not making a personal attack,
this just glared out at me) his opinion that human cellular aging can
not be reversed is best summarized by this quote in his letter: "All
organisms--indeed, all things in creation--age." This is stubborn
traditional thinking about life and aging as something mysterious or
divine. It is no longer a mystery, it is a problem to be solved. All
things in "creation" (whatever that word may mean to you) do not
age--they change over time. The entities that do age can be changed to
not age. The concept is not that difficult. Even if biogerontologists
don't get positive results, even if Aubrey de Grey has missed
important pieces of the problem definition, there are other potential
technologies for life extension and immortality of humans; really I
just see it as a matter of time and funding.
Posted 1/16/2005 12:52:06 AM by [36]adam parker
Subject: re: current editorial
Dear Sir,
I speak with brevity, as others have already made the salient
points regards ad hominem attacks. I simply propose an
appropriate, honorable course of action for you.
Resign forthwith. Such attacks are unacceptable in any
publication, least of all from the editorial.
____________________________________
Adam Parker
RMIT University
Posted 1/16/2005 12:24:22 AM by [37]Harold Brenner
Subject: Dr. de Grey
Despite the welcome acknowledgment of your failure to properly
communicate with your readers, once more Mr. Pontin, you are
motivated to cast a dubious shadow on Dr. de Grey's career and
consequently further sink the reputation of your magazine in the
quagmire of sensationalist and ill-founded standing.
1. Most who are familiar with Dr. de Grey's publications and
activities recognise him to be a theoretical biologist focused on
biogerontology. You have also failed to mention that he is the
editor of the Mary Ann Liebert published, peer reviewed
academic journal, Rejuvenation Research (formerly journal of
Anti-Aging Research).
2. You would do well to know that not all biological discovery is
practiced using agarose gels and bacterial plasmids.
3. One cannot help but think that following your feature on de
Grey (particularly the caption and photo on your front cover) you
are setting him up to be either an unintended fraud or a fool -
either of which had you the foresight to directly communicate
with him you would discover he is not.
4. All those who have been disgusted by the position of your
editorial are not necessarily "transhumanists". I do not consider
myself a "transhumanist", but the privilege of my education and
professional experience indicate to me that the aging process
has a biological solution.
4. Finally, attack the science if you must and if you can - not the
man. You are clearly not scientifically qualified, nor have you
been properly briefed to determine the validity of the science
behind de Grey's assertions.
I and my colleagues will be closely watching for a response of
more substance in your following issue prior to making a
decision as to the standing of your publication.
Posted 1/15/2005 10:03:36 PM by [38]Jason Pontin
Subject: A Open Letter to the Transhumanists
Dear transhumanists,
Thank you for your posts to the technologyreview.com site. I've
read them all with great interest. You're a passionate group!
Let me begin by writing: as many of you suggested, we will
invite Aubrey de Grey to reply to Dr. Nuland's article, the leader
"Be Sane about Anti-Aging Science," and my editorial "Against
Transcendence." You can read Mr. de Grey on
www.technologyreview.com early next week.
That said, when an editor so completely fails to express his
meaning to his readers, he may be tempted to try again. A few
notes to that end.
1. I recognize the anger in many of your posts, and apologize if I
have offended any of you.
When I called Mr. de Grey a "troll" it was of course a literary
device: a reference to a line earlier in my editorial where I
quoted the writer Bruce Stirling about the paradox that those
who were most intersted in using technology to transcend
human nature often lived circumscribed lives that seemed
anything but transcendent when viewed from the outside.
Stirling says that people who take transcendence seriously "end
up turning into trolls." This is my personal view. However,
neither Dr. Nuland's article, which I commissioned, nor our
leader on anti-aging, which I edited, made this point.
2. My list of the ways that Mr. de Grey seemed circumscribed by
his humanity was not intended as an ad hominem attack on de
Grey. An hominem attack seeks to discredit an argument by
attacking the person who makes it. As many of you noted, I did
not seriously grapple with Mr. de Grey's views in my editorial.
This is because my editorial was written as an introduction, by
the editor-in-chief, to the print edition of Technology Review.
An exhaustive list of all the reasons why I think de Grey
mistaken in his confidence that human cellular aging can be
reversed would have been redundant. The two other articles on
biogerontology, in addition to a synopsis of a scholarly
publication on the role of mitochondria in the diseases of aging,
expressed all I believe about biogerontology.
Those views, in short, are as follows: while I am fascinated by
the study of how and why human tissues age, I think it
exceedingly unlikely that human aging can be "defeated" in any
meaningful sense. All organisms--indeed, all things in
creation--age. I think it possible that we might one day extend
human lifespan significantly, and I am reasonably sure that in
the next 50 years we will "compress the morbidity" of the elderly
to a brief period before death. I have to note that most serious,
working, responsible biogerontologists published regularly by
peer review journals would agree with me--with the possible
exception of Cynthia Kenyon at UCSF, who entertains dramatic
hopes for human life extension, and who has significantly
extended the life span of nemotodes.
My editorial was about what it said it was about: it was written
"against transcendence." It was not written about Aubrey de
Grey.
3. Finally, and I write this with a little trepidation, many of your
posts reveal a degree of misinformation about Mr. de Grey's
accomplishments and publications.
I would not accuse Mr. de Grey, whom I have never met, of
being a charlatan. But there is a certain vaguness in the
transhumanist community about his role in the Department of
Genetics at Cambridge University. Mr. de Grey is not an
academic biogerontologist. He is the computer support
for a research team in Cambridge's Genetics Department. His
formal academic background is in computer science. If you
consult Mr. de Grey's publications in a resource like PubMed,
you will see they vary more than glowing profiles of de Grey
sometimes imply. For instance, his contributions to Science and
Biogerontology are commentary and letters. His publications in
Tends in Biotechnology and Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences were not, strictly speaking, peer reviewed.
That said, Mr de Grey's paper, "A Proposed Refinement of the
Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging," (de Grey, ADNJ,
BioEssays 19(2) 161-166, 1997) is, I am told, genuinely original,
and he is, obviously, a fascinating, charismatic, and provocative
figure.
My assessment of Aubrey de Grey would be that of the
biogerontologist Jay Olshansky: "I am a big fan of Aubrey. We
need him. I disagree with some of his conclusions, but in science
that's OK. That's what advances the field."
In sorrow and contrition,
Jason Pontin
Editor-in-Chief
Technology Review
Posted 1/15/2005 7:49:54 PM by Andrew
Subject: Mr. Pontin
Attacking a respected and reputable biogerontolgist for not having
kids and actively pursuing a goal shows how narrow-minded and void of
imagination Mr. Pontin is, not to mention venomous towards those who
choose not to slowly shuffle along the road of uniformity to the
slaughterhouse of involuntary death.
Posted 1/15/2005 6:03:47 PM by [39]Harold Brenner
Subject: Pro Longevity
It is the year 2005 and the respected science technology
magazine, Technology Review viciously attacks a peer respected
and numerously published biogerontologist.
The basis for the attack:
- dress style
- beard
- no children
- dedicated to his profession
- drinks too much beer
- at 41, is looking old in the face
I am concerned for the future of your magazine if such absurd
and inane drivel can bypass your editorial process since it
irrevocably compromises the integrity of all other articles
published.
Dr. de Grey, and your readers deserve an apology from your
magazine and its editorial contributor, Jason Pontin.
Posted 1/15/2005 4:34:17 AM by Vadim Antonov
Subject: disgusting
Well... Mr. Aubrey de Grey is an alleged troll, according to Mr.
Jason Pontin. What we now know for sure is that Mr. Jason Pontin is a
confirmed troll, condemned by his own words.
The trolls are, basically, demagogues, and what can be more demagogic
than ad hominem attacks (referring to appearance and personal hygiene
of the opponent), then insinuating that anyone thinking differently
from Mr. Demagogue must be a nut, ascribing made-up thoughts to
opponents, and, finally appealing to some higher sacral knowledge of
how things should be? This is precisely what Mr. Pontin did in his
editorial. He is a demagogue, plain and clear.
He made it equally obvious that he has no grasp of scientific ethics
whatsoever, and his knowledge of history of science is demonstrably
non-existant, or he would know that at least some people the later
generations came to think of as geniuses were in their time considered
nuts (and some actually _were_ mentally disturbed... Goedel, Nash, the
list goes on). Some famous scientists held decidedly cooky opinions
(Newton on alchemy, for example). This does not diminish the value of
their work, because ideas and opinions must be judged on their own
merits, not on the merits of people expressing them. This is exactly
what prevents science from degrading into yet another cult, and in
doing otherwise from the pulpit of science Mr. Pontin is making
science a grave disservice.
What Mr. Pontin could do is to present rational arguments against the
technological trancendence, but, judging by his dabbling in pop
psychology instead, he is too dim to think of any; and they're not
that hard to come by.
I think it is a disgrace that a person of such demonstrated
shallowness is holding an editorial position in a respected scientific
magazine.
Posted 1/14/2005 6:10:05 PM by [40]Samuel H. Kenyon
Subject: Mixing Modes
Mr. Pontin's point of view established in this editorial can be
summarized by his use of the quote: "Aging is the condition on which
we are given life," which is to say a muddled mixing of modes. He
seems to have the average mystical reverence for the term "life" as if
it is a permanent mystery beyond the realm of human understanding.
Albeit this is an editorial, but the mixing of modes of secular and
religio-cult terms like "transcendence" reeks of a writer-editor who
cannot bother to logically think about the canned memes he dumps on a
page, including that of the science fiction "geek" who is will never
contribute to society and lives in a fantasy world. I suppose that
means the company iRobot who sells hundreds of thousands of Roombas
and makes the packBot military robot are a bunch of trolls because
they were inspired by science fiction, indeed have a poster of the
recent movie of the same name on their hallway. "Trolls," whatever
that means to Mr. Pontin, exist regardless of science fiction--there
is no bidirectional relationship. He probably thinks Linus Torvalds
was a troll too, and that Linux is just a fad. The kind of thinking
promoted in the editorial is that of people who think the moon
landings were filmed on sound stages; after all, leaving the planet is
transcendence. What in science and engineering is not transcendence
beyond a situation in which a person is born?
References
33. mailto:chwade at nesta.org.uk
34. mailto:ag24 at gen.cam.ac.uk
35. mailto:flanneltron at flanneltron.com
36. mailto:adam.parker at rmit.edu.au
37. mailto:theoharis at gmail.com
38. mailto:jason.pontin at technologyreview.com
39. mailto:theoharis at gmail.com
40. mailto:flanneltron at flanneltron.com
---------------
http://www.technologyreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forumid=1001&iPage=2
[More responses.]
1/14/2005 3:49:01 PM by [33]Ronald K. Edquist
Subject: IS HE NUTS
Speaking as Editor of Technology Review, Mr. Pontin in Against
Transcendence engages in a bizarre smear, bordering on defamation. He
warps de Greys ideas into a psudeo-religious quest for transcendence
in order to ridicule and discredit the ideas and de Grey. This is not
science or technology, but ideology at work. Dr. de Grey may be a
character, but he is clearly also a remarkably talented person probing
an important area. Mr. Pontin has discredited and disgraced himself
and Technology Review.
Mr. Pontin should be removed from his position in order to restore
credibility to Technology Review. A man that would stoop, for
ideological reasons, to the snarling viciousness and vacuous sociology
of this piece simply cannot be trusted to be an honest broker in
providing technical information. I can respect, while disagreeing,
with Mr. Pontins position that life extension is terrible and that it
shouldnt be done. Its debatable. But it should be unacceptable to
Technology Review that in order to advance those feelings, he engaged
in ad hominem fallacies to discredit a technical proposal and its
proponent.
Technology Review could and should do something useful on this topic.
Constructive criticism and comment on de Greys proposals are not, to
my knowledge, publicly available. Each of de Greys seven proposed
initiatives could be addressed by several experts in the relevant
area. The issues are whether the proposals are feasible, would they
have the desired effect and are they worthwhile in and of themselves,
in that they would treat a disease. The final global question is
whether the combined success of these initiatives would result in life
extension. Allow de Grey to respond.
Meaningful life extension is coming, sometime. The only question is
which age cohort will be the last to suffer under the ancient régime.
Ron Edquist
Posted 1/14/2005 3:28:54 PM by [34]Tom FitzGerald
Subject: Transcending bigotry
Thank you for your fine piece by Dr. Nuland on Aubrey de Grey. While
Dr. Nuland disagrees forcefully with Mr. de Grey's goals, his profile
was insightful and sympathetic--a model of evenhanded journalism.
Sadly, the same cannot be said of the accompanying editorial by Jason
Pontin, which is little more than a mass of non sequiturs and ad
hominem attacks. In particular, I am troubled by Mr. Pontin's
implication that being childless is one of Mr. de Grey's character
flaws.
Does this magazine really wish to inform the myriad childless couples
in this country that their lifestyle is "trollish" in the eyes of The
Technology Review? Perhaps Mr. Pontin feels that female professionals
like Adelaide de Grey belong in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant.
While the pursuit of extreme longevity is currently controversial in
our culture, the idea that marriage has purposes beyond child-rearing
is not. Mr. Pontin's implication that this is otherwise is an insult
to childless couples generally, and plays right into the hands of
those bigots who oppose civil unions and marriage for gays and
lesbians on similarly retrograde moral scruples. That "An MIT
Enterprise" should publish such bigotry is shameful.
As the holder of such bigoted views, Mr. Pontin's views on aging
amelioration are rendered suspect. To those like Mr. Pontin who couple
their disdain for childless couples with a view that the elderly are
not fit to live, I ask two questions:
1) When a people live to be 121 years old, will they no longer have
the right to live? Will Mr. Pontin murder them en masse on behalf of
the "greater good" of his economic, demographic, ecological, or
perhaps religious beliefs?
2) Will those like Mr. Pontin who oppose Mr. de Grey's potentially
life-saving research be content to stop at character assassination, or
is this "MIT Enterprise" calling for a ban on all biogerontological
research not in keeping with their own bigoted disdain for the world's
elderly?
In respectful disagreement,
Tom FitzGerald
Portland, OR
Posted 1/14/2005 2:07:56 PM by [35]Thomas L Caylor
Subject: Beyond Expandence
Due to my particular nature, Im more interested in the principles
than the people involved here.
I think there is an illuminating analogy in mathematics and
engineering. Math provides ideas like the transcendental numbers to
develop tools of thought. Engineering takes those tools and
approximates them in the real world with rational numbers, bits, and
discrete time steps to produce technology that would be inconceivable
without the transcendental ideas of math.
There are the thinker types that live more in the transcendental
realm, like mathematicians, and there are the doer types that live
more in the real world, like engineers. Thats OK. We need both.
(Actually I am both, hence my choice of the analogy.)
I agree that the border to the transcendental changes, at least for
all practical purposes. This is because the border is between the
transcendental and the real world AS WE SEE IT. To say that the
transcendental is outside of all reality (as Pontin stated) is really
making a Platonic statement about a reality that is outside of our
experience. This itself is a transcendental statement. Im not against
such statements, Im for them. Im just saying that the transcendental
is inescapable. When we try to ignore it, we are denying something
that is so close to us that we hurt ourselves.
But theres something that I think de Grey doesnt get either.
Transcendence is more than a tool for expansion. The root of the
problem is how to be content. (That Woody Allen quote is great.) As
long as we are the center of our universe, the source of our own
purpose, the only conceivable path to happiness is to expand. In this
configuration, the best tool we have is simply a proof by induction.
But its a circular argument. 1) If taking this step gives me a
momentarily good feeling, then taking an indefinite number more of
these steps is the road to happiness. 2) If Im going on the road to
happiness, this means that this good feeling I have is something like
happiness. So we end up in a pursuit of happiness defined by expanding
on what we have and are now because we have an insatiable hunger for
something that we arent getting. Thus technology, being the means of
expansion, which is the only conceivable end, becomes synonymous with
the end itself. Thus the treadmill syndrome.
On the other hand, transcendence can be a means to 1) seeing that we
can be (and should be) totally content with where we are right now,
and at the same time a means to 2) seeing where we should go from
here. This can be called seeing our purpose. Doesnt it ring true to
our common sense that this is how things should be instead?
Posted 1/14/2005 12:15:43 PM by [36]Michael LaTorra
Subject: Transcending smallmindedness
There seems to be a feeling abroad in the land among some people
that having modest goals and cramped ambitions is the only morally
acceptable position. Jason Pontin apparently holds such a view. Inside
his cramped box, people live their allotted span then die, and they
should not wish for or try to achieve more. Its time to think outside
that box.
Aubrey de Grey has set his sights on the problem of achieving longer
lifespan and how this might be accomplished. Of course, this goal is
as unacceptable to the conventional box-people as is de Greys
lifestyle and his mode of dress. People who judge a scientist by his
clothing are unlikely to be open to truly radical ideas.
We do not have a duty to die. We do not have a duty to live only so
long and no longer. The immorality of claiming otherwise cannot be
hidden by engaging in silly and dismissive talk about trolls. No can
one claim science fiction writer Bruce Sterling as an authority,
unless one is also willing to grant at least equal authority to other
science fiction authors who hold diametrically opposite views.
The fair thing to do in the matter of this debate is for Technology
Review to offer the other side an equal chance to state why they
believe that technology both can and should be used to extend human
lifespan as much as possible.
Michael LaTorra
New Mexico State University
Posted 1/14/2005 10:02:11 AM by [37]J. Hughes
Subject: Astonishingly Offensive and Inappropriate
Your editorial calling Aubrey de Grey a troll is astonishingly
offensive and inappropriate ad homininem. Is this the new loyalty oath
in Bush's America: "I have not, and never have, believed technology
will radically change the human condition, and anyone who does is an
idiot"? Are you that desperate to reassure the Christian Right that
better technology will only bring better toasters and not radically
longer lives?
De Grey deserves an apology.
-----------------------------------------
James J. Hughes Ph.D.
Public Policy Studies
Trinity College
Posted 1/14/2005 8:04:32 AM by [38]Kip Werking
Subject: Ad Hominem
This was one of the most disgustingly ad hominem passages I've ever
read in a mainstream magazine:
"But what struck me is that he is a troll. For all de Greys vaulting
ambitions, what Sherwin Nuland saw from the outside was pathetically
circumscribed. In his waking life, de Grey is the computer support to
a research team; he dresses like a shabby graduate student and affects
Rip Van Winkles beard; he has no children; he has few interests
outside the science of biogerontology; he drinks too much beer.
Although he is only 41, the signs of decay are strongly marked on his
face. His ideas are trollish, too. For even if it were possible to
perturb human biology in the way de Grey wishes, we shouldnt do it.
Immortality might be okay for de Grey, but an entire world of the same
superagenarians thinking the same kinds of thoughts forever would be
terrible."
If you can't argue with de Grey's ideas, you shouldn't resort to
insulting him personally. Some of these are just tasteless ("he is a
troll"). Others aren't even insults ("he has no children"). Others are
just false ("he has few interests outside of biogerontology"--besides
his expertise in computer science and biogerontology, de Grey is an
tournament player of the boardgame Othello).
Posted 1/14/2005 3:47:31 AM by MarcG
Subject: Pioneers have always aimed high...
A meaningful life by definition requires that people have
interesting goals to pursue. And these goals have to be challenging.
The pioneering spirit of pushing boundaries and doing things that have
never been done before has always been an important part of human
history. What goal could be more inspiring or challenging than trying
for longer healthier lives?
As I understand it, Mr. de Grey was never suggesting an end to all
limits. The quest for immortality is quite likely to prove to be a way
of life - a journey not a destination. Mr de Grey is simply offering
the inspiring task of working towards radically extending healthy
life-spans. Why knock this vision?
What one would call 'transcendent' from one perspective, is ordinary
reality from another perspective. Many of the things we now take for
granted such as air-travel, radio and T.V would have seemed
'transcendent' to a cave man. But to modern man the goal post has
shifted. The pioneering spirit is not a desire to end all limits or
throw away human nature. On the contrary is the desire to positively
expand what it means to be human.
There is no clear-cut distinction between aging and disease. The
incidence of many kinds of disease increases with age. If one believes
that healthy life is a good, it seems that one is led towards the
conclusion that the best way to achieve it is to directly attack the
aging process itself. This is simply a natural extension of what human
healers through out history have always aspired to: working towards
healthier , longer lives. It's the essence of the Hippocratic oath.
If there are ethical or rational arguments against life extension, by
all means lets air them. But none are presented in the editorial.
Posted 1/14/2005 2:40:57 AM by [39]Giulio Prisco
Subject: Aging IS an engineering problem
You say: [de Grey] believes he can defeat death by treating human
aging as an engineering problem Aging is not a disease. Aging is the
condition on which we are given life.
Think of how the word disease is formed: dis - ease. Now ask anyone
who has been reduced to a poor shadow of her/himself by age, if aging
is a disease or not. Of course aging is a disease. Medical science is
about curing diseases, and has already defeated many diseases on its
march. There are diseases that todays medicine cannot cure yet, and
that is why we must develop tomorrows medicine. This is common sense.
Since the discovery of fire to the development of the Internet, the
history of the evolution of our species has been marked by those
moments where a condition on which we are given life has been attacked
as an engineering problem. We would still be living in caves of our
ancestors had considered living in caves as an inalterable condition
in which they were given life. Fortunately our cave dwelling ancestors
were saner than todays bioethicists.
You say: For even if it were possible to perturb human biology in the
way de Grey wishes, we shouldnt do it. Immortality might be okay for
de Grey, but an entire world of the same superagenarians thinking the
same kinds of thoughts forever would be terrible.
The possibility to perturb human biology in the way de Grey wishes is
an engineering problem. Todays medical science has started developing
the necessary detailed understanding of human biology, and based on
this understanding, tomorrow medical science will permit, I believe,
improving it (an engineer does not say perturb a device, (s)he says
improve a device). Please try explaining to me what is wrong with
this.
All humans who have lived so far have been forced to consider aging as
a condition on which we are given life, because the engineering
problem of aging was not operationally solvable at their time. Todays
life extension science is about solving this engineering problem. I
have no doubt that it will be solved like other engineering problems
of the past. The impossibility of talking to someone far away used to
be a condition on which we are given life, now we have the phone.
Please try understanding that we want to improve neurology as well as
biology. A world with operational life extension technology will not
be populated by superagenarians thinking the same kinds of thoughts
forever, but by smart, youthful, ever changing and evolving human
beings.
Posted 1/14/2005 1:02:18 AM by [40]Giulio Prisco
Subject: I expected better from TR
By adopting this pro-death and anti-science political agenda,
Technology Review has lost its credibility as an objective scientific
information source.
Besides personal attacks on de Grey, your editorial contains no
rational argument and no falsifiable scientific statement in support
of your points.
At least from my point of view, the only way for Technology Review to
recover its lost credibility is publishing another article or
editirial covering the opposite point of view which, as you can see
from readers' comments to Nuland article, is shared by many TR
readers.
Posted 1/14/2005 1:00:06 AM by [41]Thomas L Caylor
Subject: Expandence
From the article it sounds like we have only two choices: either
sludge apathetically through boring projects our whole life or turn
into trolls. The first choice is a common reality: Without vision the
people perish. Regarding the second choice, the reality is that we all
deteriorate into pasty-faced trembling people if we live long enough.
But with vision we live, even though our bodies decay. This is what
makes us different from robots. (See my post as TLC on the article
Adroit Droids, November 2004.)
Even our self-labeled boring problems have to originate from
somewhere. Someone somewhere had a vision that resulted in the boring
project we are working on. What is all this stuff for that we are
working on? You say its for making our lives more expansive. What does
that mean? That sounds like the Woody Allen quote in the Technology
and Happiness article, January 2005. (See my post there as BeHappy.)
Technology only adds quantity, even in the area of longevity, but it
is only the transcendent that tells us if we have quality, whether we
call it that or not. In other words, it is only the transcendent that
tells us if we ourselves have a life worth living.
In reality we are all not more than a masquerade away from looking
like Aubrey de Grey ourselves, on the outside. But is that really
where happiness comes from, the outside? If we really are alone with
ourselves, why cant we be happy with ourselves?
The transcendent isnt any of the deprecating caricatures that weve run
away from in our past. The transcendent is so omnipresent, offering to
infuse every cell and action with their purpose and meaning, that it
is easy for us to take it for granted. When we do that we end up
having to fabricate false meanings. When we do that, we choose a truly
tortuously gradual road to death, for ourselves and for the society
that is made up of ourselves.
References
33. mailto:RedQ at ATT.Net
34. mailto:tomfitzgerald at hotmail.com
35. mailto:daddycaylor at aol.com
36. mailto:mike99 at lascruces.com
37. mailto:james.hughes at trincoll.edu
38. mailto:n at n.com
39. mailto:pgptag at gmail.com
40. mailto:pgptag at gmail.com
41. mailto:daddycaylor at aol.com
More information about the paleopsych
mailing list