tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post5733372516028378097..comments2024-03-28T09:36:06.579+00:00Comments on SCOT goes POP!: Extending life - on an ever-expanding timetable?James Kellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-63581144979175747352010-10-10T17:56:21.248+01:002010-10-10T17:56:21.248+01:00Thanks for your comment, Aubrey, that's a very...Thanks for your comment, Aubrey, that's a very useful clarification. And I do fully appreciate the difficulties of dealing with journalists - I recall the absurd extremes the newspapers used to swing back and forth between over the BSE scare, in spite of the best efforts of scientists to emphasise the high degree of uncertainty.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-31896287162759546992010-10-10T16:20:57.625+01:002010-10-10T16:20:57.625+01:00This is Dr. de Grey. Thanks to you both. All I wo...This is Dr. de Grey. Thanks to you both. All I would offer in my defence is that I do in fact insert "subject to funding" into my replies to questions on timeframes much more often than is apparent, but journalists just leave it out (rather as they insist on describing my goals as "immortality" and so on). My view is that progress in the past seven years or so since I started making these timeframe predctions probably amounts to about two years of the progress I thik we would have made with full funding, so it's not as bad as all that.Aubrey de Greyhttp://www.sens.org/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-43879783494065427982010-10-02T21:28:12.648+01:002010-10-02T21:28:12.648+01:00Clearly, it is quite hard to forecast exactly when...Clearly, it is quite hard to forecast exactly when nanotechnology will start to play a significant role in treating age related decline. Nanotechnology is already appearing in items such as cosmetics and sunscreen as well as playing an increasingly important role in medicine, as it develops aided by the miniaturization of computerized delivery, diagnostic and monitoring systems it will unquestionably have very far-reaching implications. Although currently in an early stage of development Nanotechnology is already forming the basis for highly innovative drug delivery systems. In my opinion current research will lead to breakthroughs in a whole range of areas but funding is clearly concentrating on the detection, treatment and diagnosis of many types of cancer although radical progress should be made in a wide variety of areas within the next 10-20 years. Clearly actually creating nanobots is currently well beyond our present technology but progress in technology is exponential as I show on my website at http://drjohnty.com/Exponential_Growth.html and if you look at where we were around 30 years ago and then look 30 years ahead it does not seem quite so inconceivable we would have vastly enhanced capabilities within that timeframe. Below I show where we have moved in the 32 years since 1978, I anticipate a much more significant rate of progress by 2040.<br /><br />1978: First test tube baby is born<br /><br />1978: Spreadsheet<br /><br />1984: DNA fingerprinting<br /><br />1985: Vodafone makes the UK's first mobile cell phone call<br /><br />1990: World Wide Web<br /><br />1996: Dolly the Sheep (first clone)<br /><br />1998: Viagra<br /><br />2001: Self-contained artificial heart<br /><br />2001: First human / machine neural connection - Kevin Warwick<br /><br />2003: Hybrid Car<br /><br />2003 Human Genome Project (HGP) Completed<br /><br />2009: A new computer interface called the sixth sense<br /><br />2009: Rapamycin proven to slow aging in a mammal<br /><br />2009: A retinal implant for the blind<br /><br />2010: First Artificial Pancreas enters human trials<br /><br />2010: proof that he can turn any adult cell into a completely rejuvenated stem cell<br /><br />What has become apparent is that Nanotechnology is already moving from passive to active applications and the new targeted drug therapies involving this technology are already proven to have far fewer side effects with much better outcomes than conventional treatments.<br /><br />We have already seen this year that a combination of nanotechnology and adult stem cells has can remove atherosclerosis in the hearts of pigs. This research when combined with stem cells led to new blood vessel growth and the restoration of arterial function, according to the study reported by the American Heart Association see http://www.newsroom.heart.org/index.php?s=43&item=1087<br /><br />I think this all indicates we are progressing quite well and Nanotechnology is going to become a cornerstone of rejuvenative medicine.<br /><br />I am pretty confident that in less than 10 years we will see the first compound in at least stage II human trials (or maybe evan brought to market) that influences the aging process. Rapamcycin provided the evidence we can extend life in a mammal and a derivative is likely to be a potential life extension drug, but maybe one that adversely effects long-term memory, regardless we must be pretty close because we are clearly on the right track and once we get a foot in the door just as with aircraft, computers, the industrial revolution and other fundamental breakthroughs progress will be very rapid.Dr Johntyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02565660094457069608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-47922316559515411102010-09-24T16:32:20.003+01:002010-09-24T16:32:20.003+01:00Thanks for your comments, Dr Johnty. From the lit...Thanks for your comments, Dr Johnty. From the little I know of nanotechnology, I can see how that would hold great promise in this area, but surely those kind of breakthroughs must be a very long way away?<br /><br />To clarify what I said in my post a bit further, I think what troubles me about Aubrey de Grey's discussion of timetables is this. To be fair, he does very occasionally slip in the phrase "if we get sufficient funding", which would indeed make you think "OK, the 10/25 year forecasts only apply from the hypothetical point at which he has $1 billion to play with". But, much more frequently, he points out that research into many of the relevant areas is being carried out anyway, and that the role of SENS Foundation is simply to "fill in the gaps" and ensure that nothing gets neglected. So I think that would make a lot of reasonable people conclude that, to use Michael's phrase, we have already very much "got started", and therefore the timetables are meant to apply from right now - which would make the fact that they have remained static for seven years (and presumably will remain static for quite some time yet) more than a little puzzling.<br /><br />If Michael is implying that the definition of "getting started" is that $1 billion must be pumped into the "single-minded" goal of SENS (if not into SENS Foundation itself), it's very hard to see many grounds for optimism in the near future. From what I can gather, in the several years Aubrey has been at this he has amassed a few million in donations - that is indeed testament to his great passion and determination, but all the same you'd have to be a super-optimist to imagine that he's just about to turn up literally a hundred times as much cash as he has managed through all his immense efforts so far.<br /><br />For what it's worth, though, I do wish him well - his basic proposition that the most effective way to tackle the terrible illnesses of old age is to do something about aging itself does seem to be a sound one, and from what I can gather is fully shared even by the leading biogerontologists who dismiss the SENS approach.James Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01516007141763230886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-18424501072288596502010-09-24T13:46:44.789+01:002010-09-24T13:46:44.789+01:00Aubrey has always made it clear that funding is th...Aubrey has always made it clear that funding is the key and it must be frustrating that many people just can't seem to see the wood for the trees. I annoys me so it must be totally maddening to Aubrey.<br /><br />I am inclined to think that we will be pretty much able to treat and manage aging by 2030. I feel a cure for aging is probably 100 years or more away but repairing the damage caused by aging and thereby making a person biologically younger is probably between 20 and 30 years off. <br /><br />A forecast on my website at the bottom of the following page http://drjohnty.com/Exponential_Growth.html that we would introduce the first compounds to slow the aging process into the market between 2015 - 2020 would seem pretty much on target. in 2008 I foresaw a medication that delays aging and buys an extra 7 years or more of healthy lifespan. I should say at this point that I consider drugs which simply slow aging are essentially a dead end in the long term (so I basically agree with Aubrey) but in the short term they are a potential lifeboat because they will enable some older people to survive long enough until the later therapies arrive.<br /><br />In wrapping up I must say tne thing that never fails to amaze me is Aubrey's focus and determination to succeed. Personally I feel that if anyone can pull scientists together from all these different areas of research and end up saving 100,000 lives per day it is Dr Aubrey de Grey. You can check out the latest information at http://www.sens.org/Dr Johntyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02565660094457069608noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-930120922627919768.post-23473153604814057842010-09-24T13:44:50.504+01:002010-09-24T13:44:50.504+01:00Aubrey has always made it clear that funding is th...Aubrey has always made it clear that funding is the key and it must be frustrating that many people just can't seem to see it the way he and I do.<br /><br />Regardless there are various routes being pursued that will eventually achieve the goal of radical life extension. Personally I am very confident that the SENS project will come to fruition ultimately and that Aubrey de Grey is very much on the right track. Aubrey's theory that if we intervened and removed some of the damage we would make a person biologically younger certainly makes sense. The vital thing is that if it were to turn out that the Aubrey de Grey theory was wrong (or partially wrong) or that we had overlooked something vital then great promise is still beckoning as he acknowledges himself via other breakthroughs in biotechnology and nanotechnology. I am confident that the biotec revolution will yield significant increases in lifespan regardless, the key factor is that Aubrey's role is vital because he is the catalyst that is driving things forward and encouraging people in unrelated fields to work together. I cover quite a lot of areas regarding Aubrey de Grey and other people and organisations involved in combating aging on one of my websites at http://drjohnty.com/ <br /><br />I am inclined to think that we will be pretty much able to treat and manage aging by 2030. I feel a cure for aging is probably 100 years or more away but repairing the damage caused by aging and thereby making a person biologically younger is probably between 20 and 30 years off. <br /><br />A forecast on my website at the bottom of the following page http://drjohnty.com/Exponential_Growth.html that we would introduce the first compounds to slow the aging process into the market between 2015 - 2020 would seem pretty much on target. in 2008 I foresaw a medication that delays aging and buys an extra 7 years or more of healthy lifespan. I should say at this point that I consider drugs which simply slow aging are essentially a dead end in the long term (so I basically agree with Aubrey) but in the short term they are a potential lifeboat because they will enable some older people to survive long enough until the later therapies arrive.<br /><br />In wrapping up I must say tne thing that never fails to amaze me is Aubrey's focus and determination to succeed. Personally I feel that if anyone can pull scientists together from all these different areas of research and end up saving 100,000 lives per day it is Dr Aubrey de Grey. You can check out the latest information at http://www.sens.org/Dr Johntyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02565660094457069608noreply@blogger.com