|
Ronald Bailey gets it (of course):
Earlier this month, some of the world's leading researchers on aging issued an open letter calling for more funding and research directly into the underlying mechanisms of aging and methods for its postponement.
...
Setting aside the question of funding, what makes this letter very important is that it signals the beginning of a shift in the research paradigm from trying to fix the diseases caused by aging to the broader goal of devising therapies to prevent the deterioration of aging in the first place.
The Scientists' Open Letter on Aging Research is at least as big a step forward for the culture of aging research as the Longevity Dividend proposal. This for the reason given by Bailey above, but also because the Open Letter stands as an inspiring example of scientists speaking out about the plausibility of extending the healthy human life span. Public dialog is the way to overcome conservatism in gerontology, overcome conservatism in funding organizations, and turn longevity research from the instant-death third rail of grantsmanship into a viable career choice and well funded field. This is the way to set the stage for the growth of a research infrastructure and community aimed squarely at healthy life extension.
So far, the Open Letter hasn't attracted the press attention it deserves. This is where folk like you and I come in; we all know of at least one journalist who writes on health or scientific research. Find their contact information and send a polite pointer to the Open Letter. Mention that it's a big step forward for aging research - the article practically writes itself.
Technorati tags: activism, aging, gerontology, life extension
|
|
Posted by Reason
|
|
|
|
