Year End SENS Patron Fundraiser for 2018: Challenge Fund Supporters Sought

Our community year end fundraiser for 2018 will soon be underway to support scientific programs for the development of rejuvenation therapies carried out at the non-profit SENS Research Foundation. As was the case last year, once again Fight Aging! and a few fellow travelers will assemble a challenge fund to encourage new SENS Patrons to set up subscriptions to make monthly or yearly recurring donations to the SENS Research Foundation. The first year of any such new donations will be matched dollar for dollar from the challenge fund.

We think that recurring donations are important: the more that our community supports the SENS programs by providing a regular supply of funding, the easier it becomes for the SENS Research Foundation staff to plan ahead and commit to long-term projects. In past years this initiative has been a success: our matching fund was met last year, and the new monthly donors largely stick around for the long term to continue to support SENS rejuvenation research. This year regular donor Josh Triplett is going above and beyond to put up $36,000 to encourage new SENS Patrons to make the leap. Christophe and Dominique Cornuejols are contributing $12,000, and I myself will put in $6,000. We are looking for other challenge fund donors to join us in this initiative. Do you want to make a sizable difference to the future of human health and longevity? This is how it is done.

The SENS Research Foundation uses our donations to fund a range of scientific work on the foundations of rejuvenation therapies, focused on those areas that are furthest behind or that most need unblocking in order to achieve meaningful progress. These are all programs that achieve rejuvenation through repair: validating the list of cell and tissue damage that lies at the roots of aging, and then reversing these forms of damage, one by one. It is in large part thanks to the advocacy, networking, and funding provided by the SENS Research Foundation, and by the Methuselah Foundation before it, that rejuvenation research is as far ahead as it is. When the SENS programs started, popular culture and the scientific community were opposed to any initiative aiming to produce rejuvenation via targeting the molecular damage that causes aging, despite decades of evidence to strongly support this strategy.

In recent years the naysayers have been proven clearly and categorically wrong. Clearance of senescent cells through the use of senolytic therapies has been shown to produce rejuvenation in mice. The first such treatments are in human trials, in development by multiple biotech companies, and being used by a growing number of self-experimenters worldwide. That today there is a new and rapidly growing senolytics industry, poised to deploy rejuvenation therapies that can remove some of the burden of senescent cells in older individuals, is due in large part to the network of advocacy, science, and funding centered on the SENS Research Foundation and Methuselah Foundation. Clearance of senescence cells was in the SENS proposals, front and center, from the very start. Back then, at the turn of the century, the goal of rejuvenation was widely ridiculed. Nonetheless, with persistence, persuasion, and the support of our community of everyday philanthropists, here we are today, embarking upon the construction of an industry that aims to reverse aging.

Senolytics are just the start. They are only a part of the story, and only a narrow slice of the complete human rejuvenation that remains only a possibility, rather than a certainty. Scores of other equally important and beneficial projects under the SENS umbrella of repair therapies are still comparatively neglected, or blocked by the lack of tools, or blocked by the lack of funding, or lacking strong champions in the research community. We can help to change this. We did a great deal to make that change come about for senescent cell clearance, and we can do the same for mitochondrial DNA repair, for breaking the cross-links that stiffen tissues, for clearing amyloids and other harmful metabolic wastes, and more. We shine the light that shows the way, and, given time and resources, we are successful.

Give some thought to joining us. A future in which being old does not mean being sick and diminished is a future worth bringing into existence. We can all help in some way to make this vision a reality.


I can't make recurring donations (very unpredictable income lately) but surely will donate in November and December. Best luck!

Posted by: Antonio at October 15th, 2018 3:03 PM

I'll throw this out there: If Paul Allen and Bill Gates had turned their attention to SENS 10 years ago instead of professional sports and wresting global control with a Malthusian agenda, there might have been progress that would have prevented Paul Allen's death at 65 year old.

It's something I hope the 0.1% that now owns half the total global wealth thinks about.

Posted by: Tom Schaefer at October 15th, 2018 8:14 PM

Very true Tom, his failure to divert some of those billions to SENS and other anti-aging research has now made him one of the richest men in the cemetery. He could have greatly reduced his chances of becoming fertilizer after a few short decades but chose not to - not smart! And frankly Bill doesn't look good for his age either...

Posted by: John C. at October 15th, 2018 9:46 PM

As a % of his $20 billion net worth, he did a lot more than some of these other "pretenders"

Through the The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group initiative ($100 million out of his pocket), he had the balls to invest in areas that most shy away from -

For instance, there is no anti-aging without in depth study of the bio-morphogenetic code -

Posted by: Ira S. Pastor at October 16th, 2018 4:50 AM

Not to forget all the life science investments out of Vulcan

Posted by: Ira S. Pastor at October 16th, 2018 4:57 AM

@Antonio: You should study some other then mathematics. It will not bring you an income. Biotech is the place to be.

@Ira S. Pastor: He have done more then many others with much money as you wrote, but as Tom Schaefer wrote he could have done more.

Posted by: Gekki at October 16th, 2018 5:12 AM

@Gekki: I'm working as a translator since 2007.

Posted by: Antonio at October 16th, 2018 6:26 AM

Hell , probably even D+q on top of the regular chemo could have bought him enough time for the Oisin's study to finish, and their performance could b help too. If you already over several hundred Megabucks worth then a small health insurance of investing in the longevity research would but you or your loved ones a few more years..

Of course, cancer is about bad luck and you might not make it regardless of the money put in research...

On a find raising note, do you happen to have a registered charity in Canada?

Posted by: Cuberat at October 16th, 2018 7:16 AM

"Of course, cancer is about bad luck and you might not make it regardless of the money put in research..."

That's true. Though as a multi-billionaire, I'd have done my best to ensure that in case I caught cancer, the available state-of-the-art treatements would be as advanced and effective as possible.

... which brings us back to SENS and all affiliated efforts which have been sprouting in the last years. They emerged as research progressed, and in turn, research progressed partly thanks to the money which had been made available to scientists.

Let's make sure this fundraiser is a success, so that the SENS ecosystem keeps expanding and become ever more visible to billionaires.

Posted by: Spede at October 16th, 2018 7:45 AM

@Ham: that is almost a parody of the genre.

Posted by: Reason at October 16th, 2018 8:50 PM

Yeah. It's pretty much the exact opposite of what we're going for here. But I'm sure this will end up being referenced when people try to leverage arguments against longevity and aging research.

Posted by: Ham at October 16th, 2018 8:53 PM


Right. And remember, he's a professor. Which gives him a decent platform to push his views and agenda on the younger generations.

Posted by: Ham at October 17th, 2018 4:09 AM

Population growth is an issue at the present time, increasing carrying capacity is not a given, and a precipitous drop in carrying capacity is a serious danger due to the weather vagaries induced by abrupt climate change and the fact that calorie production is concentrated in a just a handful of geographic regions around the globe.

The only ethical solution is, as it has always been, to reduce the rate of reproduction.

Posted by: CD at October 17th, 2018 9:35 AM

And that, ironically is what Maltus has originally proposed (to delay marriage)

Posted by: cuberat at October 17th, 2018 11:19 AM

CD said:

"and the fact that calorie production is concentrated in a just a handful of geographic regions around the globe"

Another totally wrong assertion. It's undernourishment what is concentrated in just a handful of regions.

Posted by: Antonio at October 17th, 2018 1:39 PM

Population growth could be a concern, especially in poorer nations. Population stability has been pretty much reached (outside of immigration) for most of the western world. Even if the entire world was below replacement, it would continue to grow before it started declining. It's going to take some time. But should countries that are overpopulated with high growth rates be the reason to hold back longevity from those who are in countries that are not? Because unlike a lot of utopian thinking, I don't think everything is going to be distributed to everyone around the world all at once.


I think CD meant calorie production (food supplies) are concentrated in a few regions.

Posted by: Ham at October 17th, 2018 2:06 PM

Hi Ham! Thanks for the link. Just a 2 cents.

Wow, I'm floored (in the bad way). This a real eye opener (it pulls your eyeballs out of their sockets)

''Earth's human-carrying capacity has been exceeded; hence, population growth must end and aging societies are unavoidable. ''

''The Benefits of Aging and Shrinking Populations...
While aging and shrinking societies bring manageable economic challenges, they also bring economic benefits''

''The highest-ranked threats against red-listed species are all partly population driven, including overexploitation, agricultural expansion, urban development, invasive species, pollution, and climate change (in that order) [65]. In aging and low-fertility countries, all of these current and future extinction drivers can be reduced by declining human populations.''

''Increasing life expectancy (83.3 years in 2015) and a low fertility rate (recently 1.4) has led to an aging population, with median age 47 years [5]. The population slowly began to shrink in 2009 and depopulation of rural areas began much earlier. With a restrictive immigration policy, Japan's population is likely to continue to decline. This opens the possibility of a 'depopulation dividend', defined by Peter Matanle as the 'achievement from depopulation of positive gains that contribute to socio-cultural, political-economic, and environmentally sustainable living' [77].''

''Concluding Remarks: Smaller Human Populations, a Real Opportunity
We have presented evidence that aging and declining human populations are essential to future wellbeing and environmental sustainability. We argue that the evidence supports our general hypothesis that reduced population growth and population decline in aging countries benefit people and the environment, with appropriate policies and planning. ''

Dear lord...where to begin and where to few words:

''unavoidable, shrinking population good, aging good, dying = good, overpopulation, overpopulation, overpopulation (overoveroveroverpopulated), earth the only place there can be (other planets don't count), oblivious to the fact that we just live on 'the surface' of earth (immense areas of earth are empty of human presence, and, Russia's lands and my country (Canada) are utterly human empty/thousands of miles of (for now) unhabitable pristine woodland), there is the arctic north and antarctic (though we better hurry it's melting quick due to our earth warming), we don't live a 1000 feet in the air or 10,000 feet in the caverns/abyss (not that we need to but there are solutions to earth 'global warming' crisis and overpopulation), it's not so much human/pollution from cars/smog/industries that are 'heating' the planet so much but as they mention agriculture is large contributor with animals contributing their fare share (for example cows used in farms/agricultures, they fart and release methane gaz in the air by the metric ton, that has an effect of long term and the rising number of humans and cars, means higher CO2 (carbon dioxide released) with the shrinking forest/woods that can'T transform CO2 to O2 anymore; but that we can solve wth planting new trees forest, and as said, certain coutnries are woodland virgin and vast). They don'T want to adapt this reality they prefer to come up with the solution of let's kill humans, shrink population, stop immigration, let people Age and Die (and thus suffer of aging/diseases), do 'de-growth' as they put it, we shall save the earth (and humasn will die in the process), curb number of babies per couple (à la China) soon you will not have 1 child per couple but 0.1 child (10% of a child, whatever part you want...brain, arms, legs, you get a 10% body, it will make for a nice desk decoration as you decrepit), this is where ethics and so called morality need a serious rethinking.

I was shocked that they do not even realize just how bad what it is they are saying, and I udnerstand, that they don't care, they are fatalists and shrinking population is best - by having them die/of age. And, they themselves, LOOK forward to dying and accepted there is nothing they can do about it, they prefer to channel energy into killing whatever people whom like to actually LIVE.

Sometimes I think dire situations need drastic measures, I am not for WWIII or war, killing etc, but it realllly makes me think of the french revolution; where you were on their side or on ours, if neutral you were on theirs too (and then there was a whole lot of killing bloodshed to instore new gov/laws/rules, although today the chance of that happening are small); the fact studies like that are made and pass under radar as if nothing is nothing short of appalling. How can someone say: ''aging is good, you get benefits, economical benefits (that people die that just a given and nothing you can do about it, you will die 100% dure, thus the sooner you go, the sooner population shrinks and the more my $ account enlarges while I laugh all the way of the bank. Anyways, we all get replaced, you will too, don'T be selfish die and let kid replace you, you are a good human for giving your life by aging/dying)'' with a straight face...

It does not cross their mind that we might be able to solve aging and live much longer, the better solution is to die/accept death and 'degrow' earth of human filth because 'economical benefits'. As if a human life has absolutely no value, only the 'next' one and in 'short' supply.

But, I think they are already winning, seeing China do exactly that on a 'grand scale' with child curbing (and soon will be fatalist ethic/(anti)humanitarian work where ending people's lives is better because too many of them and because aging is good, so is dying) it,s not about to stop anytime soon (next will be India, then Phillipine, then Russia, other huge population after another); that is what I fear most. We are really in the tough position of having to defend our life because, clearly, others don't give 2 sh...'life will continue without you/you shall not be missed', they just want us to lay down and die. It's better. /s

Just a 2 cents.

Posted by: CANanonymity at October 17th, 2018 2:55 PM

"Population stability has been pretty much reached (outside of immigration) for most of the western world."

Not really. The western world is below replacement rate, so there is no stability there, and 80% of the world population is below 3 children per woman.

"But should countries that are overpopulated"

How do you define when a country is overpopulated?

"I think CD meant calorie production (food supplies) are concentrated in a few regions."

It doesn't seem so:

Posted by: Antonio at October 17th, 2018 2:55 PM

PS: in other words to fatalists ethicist :

''You Do You,

but don't force your beliefs/tell others to die/age 'because it's good for me, and you''' let them decide what they want about their Sole Life that you have no rights to (decide about). We don't decide if you live/die, you should never decide anything about anyonelse, but yourself (so if you are fatalist)

You Do You.


Posted by: CANanonymity at October 17th, 2018 3:33 PM

Agricultural area does not reflect caloric production; some crops rank high for calories per acre production, while most are quite low. Only four crops provide the bulk of calorie (and protein) production - corn, rice, soy and wheat. The central valley of California produces a lot of strawberries; strawberries are great for health but they are not what people need for basic sustenance. The main region for calorie production in the US is the 'corn belt' which grows corn, wheat and soy. A poorly timed 'stuck weather pattern' over the corn belt would be disastrous, e.g., a heat wave during 'silking'. We do have some built in elasticity in the US - some stored surplus, food used for animal feed could be diverted to humans, and of course individual stored reserves are on the high side (the obesity epidemic). However, worst case scenarios for abrupt climate change would mean not knowing what to plant where or when for several years.

"Calories matter because every last one of us needs about 1 million of them each year. They certainly aren't the only thing we need; we also need vitamins and minerals, fats and protein. But if we don't have those 1 million calories, other needs fade into the background. There's not much point in talking about phytonutrients if people are starving. "

Posted by: CD at October 17th, 2018 3:52 PM

The pragmatist hopes for the best but plans for the worst and the pessimist has been shown to have a better grasp of reality than the preternatural optimist.

In the US half of all births are unplanned - meaning half the time, the choice to become a parent wasn't a deliberate decision. Despite being a developed nation, the US has abysmal sex education programs and access to all healthcare, including reproductive healthcare, is inadequate. Comprehensive sex education and free access to birth control (including the higher up-front cost options - IUDs, vasectomies, sperm banking, and tubal ligations) would allow more people have more control over one of the most important aspects of their lives.

Dispelling popular myths about parenthood and childrearing, (e.g., parents are happier than the childless, 'only' children grow up to be selfish) would also serve to reduce reproduction.

Not providing special perks for parents might not reduce reproduction, but would be more fair to the childless. For example, a company that provides 6 weeks paid leave for new parents could instead provide a 6 week sabbatical to all employees every 3 or 5 years.

Another approach would be to go full on 'you do you', i.e., a pure libertarian system where there are no public schools, food stamps, socialized or subsidized medicine, nor even social security for the disabled. Parents would be responsible for the full cost of having a child. Of course, the children of parents who plan poorly would suffer the consequences of decisions they had no part in making. Seems a bit unfair, dare I say... unethical.

but but who will do all the work? immigration and automation
Yes, the robots will replace you:

Posted by: CD at October 18th, 2018 9:47 AM

"The only ethical solution is, as it has always been, to reduce the rate of reproduction." That is ridiculous. My awesome children will have a blast finding solutions to problems, both immediate and long term, and my grand children by them will fill the solar system with their beauty and joy. They will be joined by the ~20 children I plan to have with the finest women in existence every century into an indefinite future. I estimate 600 years from now, the first of my trillion great^25 grandchildren will start departing for the stars after we use up 16 Psyche and the planetoid cores. If you control your reproduction, your progeny that you forgo will miss out on a lot of fun in the future.

Posted by: Tom Schaefer at October 18th, 2018 12:36 PM

Thanks for posting the Zubrin article - everyone ought to read that. He makes a compelling pro-growth case that could serve as a rebuttal to the most common objection to geroscience: variants of the "population bomb." The graph showing a tripling of average welfare for each doubling of population is really powerful.

PS - Zubrin's The Case for Mars, while a little tangential to this issue, is a great read.

Posted by: Will at October 18th, 2018 5:38 PM

Will: Yeah, I have that book :) I don't agree with him on all what he says about climate, but I agree with him on the value of technology and how it's a hope for humanity, not a curse, and how far we have progressed, for good.

Posted by: Antonio at October 19th, 2018 2:15 AM

How do I make payments from my check so it comes out pretax since this is a donation? I can put more into it if it's pretax money.

Posted by: Dan at October 21st, 2018 1:27 PM

@Dan: The SRF is a 501c3 non-profit organzation, so all donations are tax-deductable. If you are in the US, just keep track of donations to the SRF and declare it as a charitable donation in the next tax return.

Elsewhere in the world, the details are different. If you look at the SRF Ways to Donate page:

you will find a list of charitable aggregator companies, and below that more information on how to use them to donate if you are in the European Union.

Posted by: Reason at October 21st, 2018 1:42 PM

Darn, I don't like keeping track of it, was hoping for an easier solution but what can I do? It makes sense to take it out incrementally per month that way I don't feel the burn at all really.

Posted by: Dan at October 21st, 2018 1:47 PM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.