Barron's latest cover article - subscription only, thus ensuring it fails to become widely discussed or relevant to online discussion - takes a look at healthy life extension and the advance of science:

Science is getting closer to winning the war on aging, thanks in part to advances in genetics and nanotechnology -- and the vision of maverick scientists. But how many of us will follow a near-starvation diet to make it to 125?

You can probably infer the tone from that soundbite, but fortunately there are always people who can report more directly. Uglychart has a couple of direct quotes, such as this one from nanotechnology researcher and healthy life extension advocate Robert Freitas:

"There are many, many different components of aging and we are chipping away at all of them," insists Robert Freitas, a senior research fellow at the Institute for Molecular Manufacturing, a nonprofit, nanotechnology group in Palo Alto, Calif. "It will take time and, if you put it in terms of the big developments of modern technology, say the telephone, we are still about 10 years off from Alexander Graham Bell shouting to his assistant through that first device. Still, in the near future, say the next two-to-four decades, the disease of aging will be cured."

More from Mary Robinson at CRON Diary:

This week's issue had [calorie restriction (CR)] on the cover and Aubrey De Grey inside! The long article was about anti-aging research. It was not especially complimentary about either CR or Aubrey.

...

I am curious to see if Aubrey gets any contributors to the mprize from this. When I saw the article at first, I thought this would be a likely result. Rich guys read Barrons. $1000 a year is nothing to them. But, I don't think the article mentioned the mprize. I know Aubrey is very purposefully on a publicity campaign to increase public acceptance of longevity research and curing aging. I think this is a great thing. It's a tough sell though. I don't think Barrons was sold.

Barrons is for investors and pretty much decided that it was too early to think about investing in longevity.

Institutional investors - even the risk takers - are about the most conservative folk you're likely to find. Investing in medicine in the present highly regulated environment is simply not a good deal when compared to most of the other options on the table. Venture capitalists will take on any sort of risk except for political and regulatory risk.

From the very limited perspective of venture or market capital investment, it is pretty early to be looking at investing in anything but the groundwork for longer, healthier lives. From the broader perspective, however, we should all be investing in those organizations that encourage and fund serious longevity research. We are standing at a cusp - the early science is visualized, the infrastructure can be built, the scientists brought on board. But it will take a philanthropic investment in time and resources to get this off the ground.

Technorati tags: investment, life extension, media

Posted by Reason at April 19, 2006 10:08 PM | TrackBack (0)