"Just as the purpose of oncology is to defeat cancer, the purpose of biogerontology is, and should be declared to be, to defeat ageing."

Just brilliant. I would add:

"The purpose of AI (and ethics), is, and should be declared to be, designing Friendly AI.

I can't wait to read the whole article.

[Posted by: Kip Werking at July 2, 2005 1:35 PM]

Why the wait on public funding? Why can't a case be made for private investment? How much would you pay for an extra (healthy) 10, 20 years or more? Why wouldn't a for-profit enterprise work out better?

I'm sorry, even absent much profit potential, I just don't understand why old billionares aren't seting up their own research institutes. How much did Gate's partner at Microsoft (I forget his name) spend on Rutan's successful effort at a private space launch? 50 million? 100 million? If you are doing it for yourself you don't really even need to worry about the FDA and all the related expenses, wasted time, etc. Who cares if they approve it?

If it works, the FDA wouldn't have much choice but to approve it anyway. Could you imagine the political pressure?

[Posted by: Jim Thomason at July 3, 2005 10:31 AM]

Aubrey de Grey is a proponent of public and philanthropic funding - he doesn't think that private for-profit funding will work. I disagree, but the line between philanthropic and for-profit is fairly fuzzy - it depends on what your profit horizon is.

The most obvious billionaires with research institutes are John Sperling and Larry Ellison - but both are funding more conservative work than Aubrey de Grey is recommending.

As publicity grows, we will see more old billionaires with research institutes - but that is part and parcel of the slow baseline change resulting from continued advocacy. We'd like to get things moving more rapidly, of course...

[Posted by: Reason at July 3, 2005 11:31 AM]

I think that the reason we don't see billionaires jumping at this is a little more complicated than we're giving credit. Older billionaires, who have the least to lose in doing something that WILL be seen as selfish by the masses, are also very set in the ways of the 20th century, and hence can't bring themselves to believe that radical approaches like Aubrey's might work. So they invest in more traditional, basic science.

Younger billionaires have more to lose in doing something seen as fringy, although that guy from Virgin Atlantic may be setting a new standard for billionaires to learn from.

Also, younger billionaires are probably going to view Aubrey with some skepticism. Would you throw a ton of money at a person who is promising something that the scientific establishment either scoffs at or wishes would go away?

Once the wheels of the MPrize start turning faster and faster, and as de Grey and the MPrize gain fame and notoriety and become as recognizeable as Carl Sagan and the XPrize, respectively, then you'll see multi-millionaires come forward, and eventually, billionaires. But that might not happen for another couple years, and possibly not even until the 2010's. I'd like it to be sooner, but we move forward and we don't let ourselves be discouraged by the fact that Ellison hasn't written a check yet. Yet.

[Posted by: Jay Fox at July 3, 2005 7:19 PM]

Maybe the billionaires are experiencing a psychological block, resulting from a fear of not having an encore; what could they do with more time that they haven't already, by the success standards of the planet as it now exists? Maybe, then, what's needed is to inspire them with projects and plans that REQUIRE a few centuries or millennia to complete, so the life extension becomes a necessary means to a "higher" end, rather than an end-in-itself.

[Posted by: Brian H at July 22, 2005 9:36 PM]