Fight Aging!

David Stipp is the author of a recently released book on longevity science. Much like the mainstream of the research community, he is of the view that slowing aging is the only practical way forward. Which is a pity - we definitely need more of the popular science authors to lean towards advocating repair strategies like SENS, but I don't see it happening before opinions change within the scientific community.

In any case, here is an interview that presents a more nuanced version of Stipp's viewpoint than has appeared in articles to date. Regardless of his opinions on the science, you'll find things to agree with:

Q: What's the brass ring in anti-aging research?
A: The near-term, totally feasible prospect scientists are working toward is the development of a safe drug that delays by seven or eight years the onset of diseases associated with aging. The goal is to slow the rate of aging and postpone all the bad stuff: Alzheimer's, cancer and heart disease are the three main killers, and then there are lesser diseases, from osteoporosis to cataracts. A true anti-aging drug would also extend maximum lifespan.

...

Q: Is that the only barrier to clinical trials in humans?
A: No. The main barrier, as with all anti-aging research, is that there's no funding. We've got ever more promising basic research and yet I don't know of anybody funding clinical work on agents that will possibly slow aging.

Q: Why aren't pharmaceutical companies all over this?
A: There's no economic incentive. A single drug in clinical development generally costs around a billion dollars, from the very beginning to the end. A pharmaceutical company can only afford to spend that kind of money on trials of something it knows it can sell as a prescription drug, with a pretty high profit. The issue here is that you can't sell something as a prescription drug unless the Federal Drug Administration recognizes that there's an indication for it. And the FDA does not consider aging a disease, so it wouldn't give regulatory approval to a prescription drug used to treat aging.

...

Q: Why haven't anti-aging researchers been more successful at marshalling resources?
A: In a nutshell, the world of medical science doesn't recognize what's happened in the research on gerontology. Partly it's because the anti-aging field has historically been an area rich with snake oil and con artists, and partly it's because aging is extraordinarily complicated - so much so that unlike diseases, many biologists felt that figuring out exactly what was driving it was a hopeless cause. To a large extent, that's how the FDA and many physicians still think about anti-aging research. People just don't know how far the science has come and how promising it is.

It is good to see more people pointing out the lunatic roadblock to progress that is the FDA. We stand upon the verge of therapies to treat aging, and the unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats forbid outright all application of such technology - so the funds aren't there for research and development. It is nothing less than insanity.