Tom Templeton of The Observer asked these questions regarding Dr. Aubrey de Grey of the Methuselah Foundation's proposals for developing real therapies for aging and his "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" conference. I hope you enjoy the answers.
1- What is your interest with SENS, why did you attend the conference?
In regards to my interest in SENS, I've always believed science would be able to address the fundamental challenge of aging. I became convinced of this when I realized that this could happen in mine, and perhaps my parents' lifetime as I tracked the developments in biotechnology. With this realization came the conviction to play a role in helping bring real anti-aging therapies to the clinic faster. Thus I became involved with the Methuselah Foundation and Executive Director of the Mprize, both efforts spearheaded by de Grey. I attended the SENS II conference because it is cutting edge and its focus, different from other aging conferences I've been to, is to highlight those technologies which can be used to actually do something about aging now, rather than just examine it. We've done enough examining. It's time to put some of the knowledge we've gained to use and develop therapies to reduce the massive suffering of an aging population.
2- Was the conference useful to/interesting for you? Why?
The single most significant aspect of the conference was that it was a gathering of scientists who study aging or are in related fields who were brough together for the sole purpose of doing something about it. They were all scientists who saw a purpose beyond the intellectual pursuit of the 'puzzle' of aging and who hope to see real-world applications for their research. This is the fundamental difference, especially in comparison to other conferences, even SENS I.
Because SENS I was organized by Aubrey de Grey for the International Assocation of Biomedical Gerontology, it had some SENS elements, but largely it stuck to the traditional paradigm of studying aging rather than fixing it. I was thus somewhat disappointed when I came away from SENS I. This was not the case with SENS II. It was jaw-dropping. It was organized entirely by de Grey and all the speakers and presentations were focused on one thing, curing aging with new technology. I was simply blown away by what I saw , especially in the presentations of Heber-Katz, Atala and Conboy. I saw not just the possibility of regeneration and rejuvenation of aging tissues at the conference, but the reality. For some shameless self-promotion, research sponsored by the Methuselah Foundation using the novel idea of biological remediation for removing cellular 'junk' was featured at SENS II and is showing progress. The Methuselah Foundation itself has seen recent dramatic growth, especially in the UK with addition of some dedicated volunteers who are working hard to increase our presence there.
3- What do you think of Aubrey de Grey's estimate that we might be able to postpone age-related death indefinitely within 25 years? Why?
From what I've seen I think 25 years is possible because the pace of progress is so rapid. Of course it might take much much longer but the point is the new tools and information we have point to the possibility. As an analogy of whether or not its worthwhile working on a 'cure' for aging, if you and your loved ones were buried at the bottom of a collapsed mine shaft, and someone handed you a shovel and said there's fifty percent chance you'll make it to the surface before the air runs out, what would you do? I know what I'm doing. I'm digging.
4- Do you think we will be able to postpone age-related death indefinitely at any point in the future? Why?
Certainly. When you can fix a machine faster than it breaks down, how long will it last? It won't cease functioning because of lack of maintenance so accident and misadventure or perhaps disease would be the main causes of death in the future. The body is an incredibly complex machine, but a machine it is nonetheless and eventually we will be able to keep it maintained at the level where 'age-related' death becomes a dim and rather nightmarish memory. When this happens is of course open to much debate but one thing is for sure, people in the future will wonder why we didn't start working on it sooner than we did.
5- Is the human organism of a finite complexity?
A hard question. Ultimately I believe the human organism is of finite but increasing complexity. However it is not so quickly increasing that we can't catch it. I believe evolution is a given in any system, and human organisms are no exception. The question is can the evolution of the human mind catch up with the evolution of human biology? I think the answer here is a clear yes.
6- What do you think of AdG's idea that we should 'sidestep our ignorance of metabolism' by 'repairing or obviating the accumulating damage of aging' rather than trying to stop or slow down the damage?
What is important is to realize that this is not an either/or situation. It is not really what we don't know, but what we do know. We *do* know that real rejuvenation of aging tissues is possible. What more do we need to know to make a start? We can continue to study metabolism, but we really need to apply what we know as soon as possible in reducing the suffering of others. We certainly didn't know everything about heart transplants, cancer therapies and a whole host of other treatments when they were first thought of, but that didn't stop people from developing them and using them to reduce the immediate and pressing need of those who could required such interventions. The real and much more important question I feel is, at what point can one morally still afford to procrastinate given the growing evidence that real aging interventions are possible? I think that at SENS II especially, the answer is obvious. That time has long past. What one really needs to do is analyze their motives for advocating such procrastination. I think at the root is an unwillingness to hope and risk disappointment. Given the historical context of anti-aging hype and ineffective snake-oil treatments this is underlying fear is understandable and turning things around in regards to such resistance will require some extraordinary developments. I think these developments are happening now.
I also agree that obviating the damage is really the only way we will see real anti-aging medicine in the near-term for all the reasons de Grey cites. We can't muck with metabolism because of our ignorance with it and trying to treat the pathologies of aging is a losing battle. Taking out the garbage and obviating the damage is the only realistic shot at getting anti-aging treatments working in the near-term.
7- Any comments on AdG’s seven deadlies, pro-aging trance concept, view of the problems with science funding?
I think there may very well be more than seven deadlies however de Grey's list is quite comprehensive and he has done a careful job of accumulating the evidence for his assertion that there are only seven. If there are more than seven, the others are doing a good job of hiding and likely only with the removal of the most visible offenders will we see their appearance.
You don't have to go far to find good evidence of the pro-aging trance. Usually you only have to look at your own attitudes. I still harbor almost instinctive reactions to the idea that 'getting old and decrepit' is natural, even though I have never been 'pro' about it. It is difficult to imagine how anyone could be 'pro' about something so obviously negative but there are many who quite seriously suggest that the dysfunction and disease of aging is something we should accept. That is certainly not me. Although there are many "pro-aging" individuals, I tend to think that there are vastly more who are simply numb to it, like watching too many horror movies enures one to the site of blood. Seeing the old get decrepit just doesn't mean anything to the anesthitized masses. For instance, the same symptoms which elicit shock and sympathy when they are in a child with progeria, evoke not even a comment from anyone when they show up in the elderly. Medicine rushes to search for a cure for the symptoms of aging when the are exhibited in the young, but doesn't blink an eye when presented in the old. This double standard is perhaps the best indication of how deeply engrained the fatalism of doing anything about aging is and represents the biggest challenge facing de Grey and others who aim to snap people out of their trance and wake them from their sleep.
I have spent more than a few hours talking with different policy makers, scientists and politicians regarding the topic of funding for aging research. Again I can verify that everything de Grey says about the problems with obtaining funding is totally on the mark. There is a 'vicious circle' of habitually avoiding aging-intervention oriented projects by researchers in biogerontology. They know that they won't be funded because historically they haven't been funded. Saying you want to develop an 'anti-aging therapy' is a sure way to kill your grant proposal. Historically, it was never thought in the peer review process that such projects were worthwhile expenditures of resources because it was thought that the chances of doing anything about aging were next to none. With the onset of new tools to discern, decipher, and develop new approaches however, all bets are off and such a view is no longer valid and is indeed, quite unhelpful. Efforts like de Grey's Mprize, in which I am heavily involved as Executive Director, that combines sure-fire elements such as money, fame and competion, will draw the attention of the non-scientist to the possibilites of real aging therapies and the need for dramatically increased funding. The demonstrated need for funding will encourage average individuals to agitate for progress and governments will need to listen much as they do now with cancer and Alzheimer's initiatives.
8- In your opinion would postponing death indefinitely be a desirable, or even (as AdG holds) a morally imperative goal? Why?
I'm sorry but I just cringe when I hear a question like this. To put myself into the frame of mind where this question makes any sense is impossible for me. I'm not a complicated thinker when it comes to the idea of postponing death indefinitely. We postpone death all the time. We save people's lives by the hundreds of thousands every year with technologies like antibiotics whose lack destined millions to die over the course of human history before they were available. Why do we do this? Because we are human, and one of the most human traits we have is compassion for our fellows. The way I see it, if life is good, it is good to be alive, and having more of that is a good thing, so for me it's really quite simple.
I definitely feel it is a moral imperative to develop these therapies as soon as possible. It was a substantially different situation a few years ago when it wasn't readily apparent that anything could be done about aging, but procrastinating now is like failing to throw a lifeline, if not to ourselves, at least to future generations, and save them from the suffering and decay which humanity has lived with since time began. To actively avoid pursuing the development of anti-aging therapies, when their possibility becomes obvious, seems to me to be at least unforgivable negligence on the part of those who can see the writing on the wall. Future generations should have the choice as to how to best use new medical technologies, it is not our responsibility to make that decision for them and withhold such important advances. I see no compelling reason for ensuring that they are not able to make that choice and every reason to ensure they do.
9- If you are involved in the field of gerontology, why/how did you get involved in this field?
I am currently conducting aging related research and studying mitochondrial dysfunction using the model organism C. elegans at the University of Alberta while pursuing my Bachelor of Science degree. I decided to choose this field three years ago when it became obvious to me that science would soon be breaking upon new shores in aging research, and that effective anti-aging therapies could be forthcoming sooner than later. With this realization it became clear to me that however much time I may have remaining in my life, it is best spent in the attempt to extend it and that of my loved ones both known and unknown. If we're successful we all win and I can take as much time as I need to pursue the thousands of other things for which I need at least a few centuries to fully enjoy and accomplish. If we don't succeed, my efforts will have helped in some small way to bring the day when these interventions are available for others forward sooner. I'll consider that a life well lived.