3 ms·

The projected cost estimate for a crash program with a 50/50 shot of realizing SENS in mice in ten years is $1 billion - meaning achieving robust rejuvenation o

The projected cost estimate for a crash program with a 50/50 shot of realizing SENS in mice in ten years is $1 billion - meaning achieving robust rejuvenation of old mice. It is an ongoing and interesting debate as to why funding of aging research by wealthy people is not more extant. See Larry Ellison's not very vocal interest in the field - he puts a fair amount of money into what amounts to a private arm of the NIA, which is to say he's not getting much in the way of progress for his funding. Or look at Paul Glenn's somewhat better aimed funding of ways to slow aging via the establishment of the Glenn Laboratories in a variety of research centers. Or Peter Thiel's $3 million for SENS research a few years back. These things are on a line from worst to best in terms of ways to achieve extended youth and repair aging. But beyond that, there isn't much going on. When you compare and contrast with the behavior of wealthy people who suffer from a named medical condition, the disparity in action becomes clear. The biggest challenge is not so much the technical side of things - the path to repairing aging is as clear as things ever get in science - but the fact that very few people seem in any way interested in achieving this goal.

usaar333 15y ago
Given how little we know about stopping aging, and that blocking senescence also requires having a cure for cancer which society has thus far failed to find after spending something like $10B a year on it, I'm extremely skeptical of your claim about cost and time frame. Do you have a source for that?
- reasonattlm 15y ago
  We in fact know a very great deal about stopping aging. This book is a crash course in the science and what it means: http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthroughs-Lifetime/dp/0312367066 http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthrough... If it wasn't illegal to commercially develop ways to treat aging, there would be a lot more progress than has happened to date. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/03/the-roadblock-that-is-the-fda.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/03/the-roadblock-tha... Making humans immune to cancer in the SENS proposals is accomplished via this methodology: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/complicating-wilt.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/complicating-wilt... But from where I stand, watching research fairly closely for some years, I'm not particularly worried about cancer - the next generation of targeted and immune therapies under development now will be highly effective, and are looking very good in the laboratory: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/01/the-prospect-of-cancer-does-not-worry-me.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/01/the-prospect-of-c... The $1 billion figure for realizing SENS is referenced in these items; I'm not aware of a full line item breakout: http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/SIAAR-PP.pdf http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/SIAAR-PP.pdf http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/A4M04-PP.pdf http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/A4M04-PP.pdf
themgt 15y ago
I think clearly the goal needs to be better branded/marketed to the public - that there's sort of a "you can't get there from here" problem with the "cheat death!" line being pushed by de Grey/Kurzweil vs. the current mindset, and as an even bigger problem is simply that death is an uncomfortable topic to really talk about head on for most people, and it leads to a lot of avoidance/rejection If it could be promoted as something like, live healthier, longer (and really you're very likely to still be killed off by cancer eventually, so I very much doubt v1.0 life extension would see many/any 120+ lifetimes), it would be a much, much easier sell. Feel like you're 40 when you're 75 - that sounds great. Live forever sounds like nerd heresy And, if you can pull that off and build up a big population of healthy 100 year olds, then you've got a base who says hey, this is pretty good, maybe we should shoot for 200 after all? And so on... We won't have that tech at any point soon anyway, and so at this point the vaporware is killing the product
jakeonthemove 15y ago
There are a lot of smart people who pour money into the research, but it's definitely not enough of them. Not to mention that the wealthiest of the wealthy don't seem interested, as you said. I guess it's because it seems so incredible - I mean, even I can hardly imagine what living completely healthy up to 100+ years or living 200+ years must be like, so those who never thought about it must be like "what the heck are you talking about, crazy person?"

usaar333 15y ago

Given how little we know about stopping aging, and that blocking senescence also requires having a cure for cancer which society has thus far failed to find after spending something like $10B a year on it, I'm extremely skeptical of your claim about cost and time frame. Do you have a source for that?

reasonattlm 15y ago
We in fact know a very great deal about stopping aging. This book is a crash course in the science and what it means: http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthroughs-Lifetime/dp/0312367066 http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-Breakthrough... If it wasn't illegal to commercially develop ways to treat aging, there would be a lot more progress than has happened to date. http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/03/the-roadblock-that-is-the-fda.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/03/the-roadblock-tha... Making humans immune to cancer in the SENS proposals is accomplished via this methodology: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/complicating-wilt.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/complicating-wilt... But from where I stand, watching research fairly closely for some years, I'm not particularly worried about cancer - the next generation of targeted and immune therapies under development now will be highly effective, and are looking very good in the laboratory: http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/01/the-prospect-of-cancer-does-not-worry-me.php http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/01/the-prospect-of-c... The $1 billion figure for realizing SENS is referenced in these items; I'm not aware of a full line item breakout: http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/SIAAR-PP.pdf http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/SIAAR-PP.pdf http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/A4M04-PP.pdf http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/A4M04-PP.pdf

themgt 15y ago

I think clearly the goal needs to be better branded/marketed to the public - that there's sort of a "you can't get there from here" problem with the "cheat death!" line being pushed by de Grey/Kurzweil vs. the current mindset, and as an even bigger problem is simply that death is an uncomfortable topic to really talk about head on for most people, and it leads to a lot of avoidance/rejection If it could be promoted as something like, live healthier, longer (and really you're very likely to still be killed off by cancer eventually, so I very much doubt v1.0 life extension would see many/any 120+ lifetimes), it would be a much, much easier sell. Feel like you're 40 when you're 75 - that sounds great. Live forever sounds like nerd heresy And, if you can pull that off and build up a big population of healthy 100 year olds, then you've got a base who says hey, this is pretty good, maybe we should shoot for 200 after all? And so on... We won't have that tech at any point soon anyway, and so at this point the vaporware is killing the product

jakeonthemove 15y ago

There are a lot of smart people who pour money into the research, but it's definitely not enough of them. Not to mention that the wealthiest of the wealthy don't seem interested, as you said. I guess it's because it seems so incredible - I mean, even I can hardly imagine what living completely healthy up to 100+ years or living 200+ years must be like, so those who never thought about it must be like "what the heck are you talking about, crazy person?"