3 ms·
Funny you mention that. I just came back from this year's AGE conference in San Antonio, which is very much a mainstream research conference, and not only was i
by xaa 12y ago
Funny you mention that. I just came back from this year's AGE conference in San Antonio, which is very much a mainstream research conference, and not only was it partially sponsored by SENS, but de Grey himself was there.
So yes, they are very much aware of it. I think many aging researchers have a love/hate relationship with SENS, in that they share its goals in theory, but are afraid its ambitious public claims will draw disrepute (and associated loss of funding) upon the field.
You have to remember that we are mostly funded by the NIH, whose mandate is to treat disease, and aging is not widely considered a disease. So we have to frame our discourse accordingly.
- JulianMorrison 12y agoDe Grey himself seems to take the approach: "we are working on regeneration medicine that will cure each particular, nameable thing that is wrong with old people, and when you have done all of that, there is nothing left to call aging." Thus the NIH problem is side stepped.
- xaa 12y agoHe has definitely moderated his tone in the past few years, and has implicitly acknowledged that the specific program he outlined in his book may have been an oversimplification. But still, you have to be a bit more subtle with grant reviewers than that. "Age-associated disease" is a common catchphrase. For best results, the emphasis has to be on the disease rather than on the aging (even you happen to believe, as I do, that aging is a common root of many diseases).