Given the BioViva press release I pointed out earlier today, you may be interested in listening to a Longevity Day roundtable held yesterday, since Elizabeth Parrish of BioViva was participating, as well as Keith Comito of the Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, and a few other names you might recognize. From my perspective it is great to see so much going on that I only find out about after the fact: one of the signs of a healthy and growing community is that people are off doing things and I have no idea, since there is too much to keep track of in any reasonable amount of time.
What can be done to raise public support for the pursuit of indefinite life extension through medicine and biotechnology to the same level as currently exists for disease-specific research efforts aimed at cancers, heart disease, ALS, and similar large-scale nemeses? In this panel discussion, held on October 1, 2015 - International Longevity Day - Mr. Stolyarov asks notable life-extension supporters to provide input on this vital question and related areas relevant to accelerating the pursuit of indefinite longevity. This panel is coordinated in conjunction with MILE, the Movement for Indefinite Life Extension.
Panelists: Adam Alonzi, Sven Bulterjis, Keith Comito, Roen Horn, B. J. Murphy, and Elizabeth Parrish
A set of presentation slides was put together by Butlerjis, and is worth a few minutes of your time. In particular, one of the lessons to take away here is that big budget cancer research didn't just magically happen overnight. Rather it was the culmination of many failed attempts to create such a state of affairs over the course of half a century. Prior to the 1970s cancer research in fact looked quite similar to the situation for aging research today: little interest, little funding, large gaps in the scientific understanding of the fine details of the disease, but the clear potential to make a big difference to patients and therapies with what was known at the time.
1910: The American Association for Cancer Research convinces president Taft to ask congress to build a national lab for cancer research: failure.
1927: Senator Matthew Neely asks congress to give 5 million USD for information that could lead to a cure for cancer: he got 50,000 USD.
1937: Neely, Senator Homer Bone and Representative Warren Magnuson : National Cancer Institute Act, success signed by president Roosevelt: NCI founded, but the war in Europe soon ended funds for the NCI.
1946-47: Neely and Senator Claude Pepper: 3rd proposal for nation wide cancer research: rejected.
Solomon Garb said in 1969: "A big obstacle in the fight against cancer is the severe an chronic lack of money, something that is not known to most people. We won't get there by repeating this. It is also necessary to explain how it will be used, what kind of projects will be financed with it, why these projects deserve our support, and where the scientists and technicians that have to execute them will come from."
Why do some diseases have a big impact only in a given era? Theory: the society couples diseases to psychological crises. For Cancer: in the '70s when the focus changed from external (USSR) to internal (cancer). For AIDS: in the '80s when the generation was obsessed with sexuality and freedom. For SARS: in the 21st century alongside the fears of globalization. But what about aging?
To conclude: cancer has a similar history to aging, we also need marketing, business people, and celebrities on our side, and aging has to be recognized as a disease.