Dude! You beat me to this. This thing smacks so much of Pontin simply hating de Grey and his agenda. The judges, in my opinion, make Pontin seem desperate and somewhat pathetic. As you pointed out, none are qualified biogerontologists. Their relationship to the subject matter is tangential at best. All are certainly smart people, but how many papers has Rodney Brooks written on senescence?

This may definitely have a silver lining to it.  At least I hope so! lol
How much money exactly does de Grey want to try and prove his theories and over how many years?  If I remember correctly he asked for one billion dollars and ten years to carry out his program.  What are the odds he will get his desires met? : (

John Grigg

I don't have a problem with reality-checking the current version of SENS. If Aubrey's current ideas won't work, we need to find out sooner rather than later so that people can come up with better ideas.

J. Craig Venter is the man behind the rapid sequencing of the Human Genome, so I would take his scientific credentials very seriously. Nathan Myhrvold is an accomplished scientist and a known genius, so I wouldn't write him off either.

I contributed to the M-Prize fund last year, so I am obviously not against Dr. De Grey. However, I am curious. We can't even cure something as simple as male pattern baldness. Why would we be able to cure aging in the foreseeable future? I am not being a naysayer or a skeptic, but I could use some insight.

It is ok to be a skeptic.  You raise a good point.  Baldness seems like it should be fairly easy to solve considering our level of technology.  

There is a difference between constructive skepticism such as that and just saying "This is impossible and will never be done."

The reason there is a good chance for indefinite lifespans is because one has to take into account future technological developments.  Technological advancement seems to be exponential.  As new technologies are invented, these new technologies often speed the development of other technologies.

After the invention of the telephone, ideas were able to travel much more quickly.  Thus, the rate of advancement increased.  The same was true with the telegraph, the computer, the internet, etc.

Every new treatment that increases lifespans another few years, increases the amount of time one has to wait for new treatments... which theoretically should be coming at an exponential rate.

Frankly I'm not that worried about this because it will generate publicity for de Grey's ideas. In the long run it will spur thoughts and further research; that's a net gain.

To quote the old addage, "there is no such thing as bad press."  I think that technology review cover story was a huge net gain for de Grey, even if it was a bit on the skeptical side.

Curious that you mention male pattern baldness... and you said simple???

In what way is finding a way to "cure" male pattern baldness easy when it comes from the very hormone that the male body produces.  Sure, we could VERY easily cure male pattern baldness, but you'd LOSE the ability to grow and sustain muscles, hormone regulation, sexual vitality, most of your stamina, and probably the ability to reproduce.

Easy.

I am the Editor in Chief of Technology Review. Two notes, one important and one less so.

The less important:  I do not "hate Aubrey de Grey and his agenda," although I am skeptical that SENS is scientific in any meaningful sense, and I sinmply do not know whether a world in which every one lived indefinitely would be a good thing. However, far from hating Aubrey de Grey, I would call him a friend of sorts. Indeed, members of the Betterhumans community might be interested to know that Aubrey and I conconted the SENS Challenge together. It is both our interests to debate the merits of SENS, although we have different motives for doing so.

But more importantly: Aubrey de Grey and I decided from the beginning not to include established biogerontologists on the SENS Challenge panel. Why? We could have got them, but we felt they had an interest in destroying SENS. We wanted an independent panel of technically competent scientists and engineers. I think we have found it. Who could really claim that Venter, Brooks, Myhrvold, etc., are not credible judges.

 
amperro said:
<blockquote>
We can't even cure something as simple as male pattern baldness. Why would we be able to cure aging in the foreseeable future? I am not being a naysayer or a skeptic, but I could use some insight.
</blockquote>
de Grey does not advocate curing aging, he advocates reparing the damage that the aging process causes, this is a very different goal.

 
jpontin said:
<blockquote>
We wanted an independent panel of technically competent scientists and engineers. I think we have found it.
</blockquote>
I would definintely agree with that.  They are all well qualified for judging scientific processes.

Jason: Consider this an official retraction of you "hating Aubrey de Grey and his agenda." I will settle for you liking de Grey but being highly skeptical of SENS and the benefits of its impact. Damn nuances :)