3 ms·
If Juvenescence puts serious effort into senolytics, then this will be useful. The more the merrier in that field to join Unity Biotechnology, Oisin Biotechnolo
by reasonattlm 9y ago
If Juvenescence puts serious effort into senolytics, then this will be useful. The more the merrier in that field to join Unity Biotechnology, Oisin Biotechnologies, SIWA Therapeutics, etc.
Everything else outside the SENS portfolio that can be accomplished via drug discovery to alter the operation of metabolism, focusing on known targets such as mTOR, is most likely a pointless waste of time and energy. It has been a pointless waste of time and energy for the past two decades, and I don't see that changing any time soon. The approach of trying to mimic calorie restriction or upregulate autophagy or mess with growth hormone/insulin metabolism or mimic exercise has very definite upper bounds on effectiveness.
The longevity dividend promise of "spend billions to add a couple of years of life expectancy by 2040" is underwhelming, and anyone out there talking about drug discovery to alter metabolism to slow aging is in that camp.
If billions are to be spent, then use them to follow the SENS approach of damage repair, not tinkering the system to slightly slow down the pace of damage accumulation. Only damage repair, such as via senolytics to clear senescent cell accumulation, can in principle produce rejuvenation of the old and greatly extended healthy life spans, more than just a few years.
It is not a coincidence that senescent cell clearance has in a few short years, just as soon as people started to try it in earnest, proven itself far more effective and reliable and useful than the past 20 years of people trying to mimic calorie restriction or boost autophagy.
- kanzure 9y agoI think most of this money would be better spent focused on reducing the cost of life extension research, like essential tooling, not spelunking through combinatorial search space for drugs. Granted, this is more of an engineering approach, so I could see why biologists might prefer tinkering with oxidation pathways. If a synthetic genome costs $40 million then how are you going to try out 1,000 low-aging variants of the genome without spending an impossibly large amount of money? The cost centers need to be ruthlessly attacked-- sequencing, synthesis, combinatorial array testing, scale-up of arbitrary biomolecule production, debugging methodologies (optogenetics has been a tremendous success), etc.
- true_religion 9y ago$40 million times 1000, is forty billion dollars. This is less than half the networth of Bill Gates. If a single-mans fortune could potentially fund the entire thing, then for sure a coalition of wealth could easily fund it if there was even a mild guarantee for success.
- kanzure 9y agoWell, low-aging phenotypes (and genotypes) have already been discovered in the population. Doesn't make you invincible, of course. How mild of a guarantee are you looking for, again?