I am happy to announce SJ Olshansky will be joining Imminst for the Sunday Night Chat this Sunday December 2nd at 6:30pm CST U.S. If you are not familiar with Professor Olshanksy...you should be. He was researching methods to slow aging while most Imminst members were still in diapers. He has seen all the hype, the successes, and failures. His latest endeavor is the The Longevity Dividend, which proposes to set aside 3 billion (that's billion with a B) dollars a year of NIH funding for the study of aging.

Chat Room: http://www.imminst.org/chat

Sun December 2nd
4:30 Pacific
5:30 Mountain
6:30 Central
7:30 Eastern
[timezone help]

Awesome, Mind... perhaps someone can add to the calendar?

Here is Dr. Olshansky's ImmInst chat from 2005.

Oh that calender thing is sweet! Anyone can add stuff? That would be a great source to keep up to date with life extension stuff. (imminst and other)

Yes, Nate.... all ImmInst members can add events

Join the chat and find out what Professor Olshansky thinks is the most promising avenue of research when it comes to extending human lives.

Before you enter the chat room on Sunday, you might want to check out some of Olshansky's past articles here at his download page.

He made this wager in 2000:



I wonder if Professor Olshansky still thinks he will win...now that 7 years have passed (since the bet) and aging research continues to apace.

The only bad thing is that 500 million in 2150 will be worth like 10 bucks nowadays. (slight exaggeration)

Should be an awesome chat. I am looking forward to it.

Chat isn't working for me now... Server down? make sure it's up for tomorrow :)

This post has been edited by Matt: 1-Dec 2007, 05:14 PM

There are some good videos with Jay in discussing aging here at the top of this page.

http://web.mac.com/sjayo/SJayOlshansky/Background.html

Join the chat and find out why Olshanksy is critical of Aubrey De Grey's approach.

As far as the chat room goes...seems it was working last night for awhile, then stopped working again. Will try our best to make sure it is operational for tonight's chat.

Coming up in about 3 hours. Hope to see you there.

Heading into the chat room now

Aubrey De Grey has now joined the chat with Professor Olshansky

<RichardJSchueler> S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D. (born 1954) is a professor of epidemiology at the University of Illinois at Chicago School of Public Health.[1] He is a biodemographer, biogerontologist and researcher on the upper limits to human ageing and longevity and efforts to inform the public about products that claim to reverse or stop the aging process. Olshansky is the lead author of "The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging," t
* Bart1 has joined #immortal
<Mind> Thanks for the info Richard
* Bart has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<Mind> I see that our esteemed guest is here
<Mind> so I think we can start the chat now
<sjayo> good evening
<Mind> Remember
<Mind> I will ask a handful of questions to begin
<Mind> then I will annonce open chat after about 20 minutes
<Mind> Good evening Professor Olshansky and thank you very much for joining the chat tonight.
<sjayo> pleasure to be here
<Mind> For those not aware, one of Prof. Olshansky's major projects recently is the Longevity Dividend
<Mind> How is everything going with the Longevity Dividend? Any recent news?
* ag24 has joined #immortal
<Mind> Has wording been inserted into the NIH funding bill yet?
<ag24> hi all
<sjayo> we have a follow-up manuscript now in preparation, with an excellent cast of authors. also, congress has adopted our language upon a request by senator Harkin.
<ag24> bah, looks like you started early :-)
<Mind> What was the key aspect of getting the ears of congress?
<sjayo> you will see a rather dramatic change in how much money is spent on basic aging research beginning next year
<Mind> AG24, you are on time, I will ask a handful of questions to begin and then I will give you an opportunity to join in
<sjayo> the key event was the longevity dividend briefing on capitol hill put on by the alliance for aging research, and the subsequent personal meeting with senator harkin.
* mitkat has joined #immortal
<Mind> Any contact with members of congress since the meeting with Harkin
<Mind> ??
<sjayo> you can view the entire briefing on my website. no subsequent meetings, although dan perry from the alliance is always active.
<Mind> The Chinese government recently announced a massive investment in anti-aging research, how does the U.S. compare to other countries of the world with respect to "dedicated" aging research?
<sjayo> actually, i believe their investment was in anti-aging medicine put on a4m. i would hardly call that an investment in research on the biology of aging.
<Mind> ok understood
<CNorwood> website: http://web.mac.com/sjayo/SJayOlshansky/Background.html
<Guest6556601> A4M encourges public acceptance and support of antiaging research
<Tech> hah, i wish we had Dr. Klatz here to respond...you two don't agree on much if I recall
<Mind> Please keep comments out for now
<Mind> another 10 minutes of member questions
<sjayo> frankly, there is very little research money spent anywhere on the basic biology of aging.
<Mind> question from member Bram
<Mind> Which theory of the cause of aging seems to be supported by evidence the most at the moment?
<sjayo> that's outside of my area of expertise -- i'm sure you have other people here who can comment on that. i know of the theories of aging, but commenting on which one looks the most promising is best left to the biologists in the laboratories.
<Mind> ok, thanks
<Mind> Personally, how do you combat the effects of aging?
<sjayo> remember, i've stated for quite some time that the only control we have over aging at the moment is to accelerate it, or shorten our lives. eliminating or reducing those risks is what I do -- no smoking, no tobacco, little exposure to sun, no alcohol, daily exercise
<Mind> I know you have a long history of warning the public about "snake oil" treatments and supplements, are there any supplements that you take?
<sjayo> and of course, i'm trying like everyone else to reduce my caloric intake
<sjayo> no, i take no supplements
<Mind> Seems there is some evidence for the efficacy of at least a few supplements out there, any reason why you don't take these?
* mitkat has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
* Guest1 has joined #immortal
* mitkat has joined #immortal
<sjayo> there is quite good evidence for women and their use of some supplements, but clinical trials are few and far between on supplements. much that has been published of late on supplements where they've actually been evaluated using clinical trials indicate they don't work, and that we'd be much better off eating more fruits and vegetables. there is a very nice summary in a special issue of the journal of gerontology: biological sciences t
<Mind> Some members may be aware that you have been critical of Aubrey De Grey's approach to aging research...
<Mind> What is your main criticism of Aubrey's approach to aging research?
<sjayo> no, i'm critical of his approach, i'm critical of his conclusions before the empirical evidence is in.
<Mind> ok, I see
<sjayo> big difference
<Mind> It appears Aubrey has joined the chat
<Mind> Aubrey, do you have any questions at this moment
<sjayo> cheers aubrey
<Mind> Maybe he is away from his computer at the moment
<ag24> I'm here - am I online now? - I gathereed there was a period when members were asking moderated questions
<ag24> OK I see I am! - OK here goes...
<Mind> Just wondering if you had any questions at this point
<ag24> My differences with Jay are indeed slight. The main thing is:
<sjayo> aubrey and i are about to spend some time debating at a meeting in arizona. it will be fun.
<ag24> Jay imposes., in my view arbitrarily, a threshold level of "directnes" of evidence, below which he views a given item of data as irrelevant. I, conversely...
* Elrond has joined #immortal
* LazLo has joined #immortal
<ag24> take the strategy that thinking laterally works best, and that evidence that may seem indirect at first sight can sometimes be very compelling. SENS is built largely on evidence of this sort. It's definitely data - published experimental data - but it's not the sort that basic scientists tend to prioritise. That;s the distinction that I always stress between basic scientists and technologists.
<sjayo> i believe you will find that aubrey and i agree on most things, and certainly the most important issues, and in the end, that's what really counts.
<Mind> My feeling is that it is a win-win for aging research:
<Mind> Aubrey-SENS-private funding, at the same time Olshansky-Longevity Dividend-Public funding
<ag24> Mind - totally, I'm in favour of a 100-flowers model
* MAK has joined #immortal
<sjayo> we are not just seeking public funding by the way, we are going way beyond that..... you will need to wait for the next manuscript.
<Mind> Will be waiting anxiously
<ag24> jay - conversely, we're not only focusng on private
<sjayo> what matters in the end are not petty squabbles, but rather, the fact that decelerating aging is the best and most efficient to do what we are already doing
<Mind> The chat is now open to all members, however, please be coureous in this format and try to stay on one theme/question/idea at a time.
<Mind> **courteous
<sjayo> and matt, i understand your pain with tinnitus
<Mind> you have tinnitus also?
<BruceKlein> Hi Jay, Mind... can you talk more about the upcoming event in Arizona?
<Matt> Hi jay! Yes it is quite annoying at times... got static going on right now and masks it :)
<sjayo> yes, acquired it 3 years ago.
* Kalepha has joined #immortal
<Matt> white noise
<ag24> sjayo - yes, and thus to highlight the bankruptcy of the traditional gerontologist stance that it's all about "compressing morbidity", "successful aging" etc.
<Mind> yes...more about AZ event
<BruceKlein> Jay, Aubrey... that is.
<sjayo> the event in arizona is being put on by some religous organization in illinois, i don't recall their name, but aubrey and i debating will be featured and recorded.
<ag24> The arizona event may be very interesting. They seem to think Jay and I will disagree on the desirability aspect
<sjayo> however, it won't be much of a debate since we'll both be saying largely the same thing.
<ag24> I think we may give thm a bit of a shock
<sjayo> perhaps we should really shock them and not disagree at all
<ag24> I hve not entirely enlightenend them on this point
<BruceKlein> Aubrey, you were recently at a religious event in CA... right?
<Mind> A religious org/
<Mind> what is their motivation?
<sjayo> steve austad and i have public debates all the time, they're quite fun, but i will win the bet of course.
<Mind> motivation for holding the debate
<sjayo> i actually don't know their motivation.
<Mind> interesting
<ag24> sjayo - yes, actually for the second time (the american academy of religion) - but that was a very academic theologian crowd, not a hard sell at all
* Elrond has left #immortal
* Elrond has joined #immortal
* ChanServ sets mode: +o Elrond
<Mind> Why are you so confident that you will win the bet with Austad?
<ag24> their motivation for the debate is profound ignorance
* Elrond sets mode: +o ag24
<Mind> Your bet was 7 years ago...
* Elrond sets mode: +o sjayo
* Elrond sets mode: +o Mind
<Mind> hasn't their been enough progress in aging research....
<Mind> to make you change your min a bit
<Mind> **mind a bit
<BruceKlein> Jay... how do feel the public climate toward life extension science has changed in the last ten years or so... say, do you feel it has changed faster, or about in line w/ your expectations?
<sjayo> the first 7 years have passed, and the demographic evidence keeps moving in my favor. in fact, i believe we're on the verge of a decline in life expectancy in low mortality populations. no one seems to be pushing jeanne calment's record.
<ag24> they see Jay and me as disagreeing, and they stop right there and presume that we disagree on what they disagre with me on. I bet they haven't asked Jay what he actualy thinks. Jay?
<RichardJSchueler> Do you have a link to the gain in life expectancy by elimination of cause of death table, newer than 1991?
<ag24> sjayo - my take on recent data is not far from yours - we need another breakthrough like infectious diseases, else there will be at best a levelling-off. I plan to hasten that breakthrough
<sjayo> nope, they haven't. on the public climate toward life extension, much depends on what you're talking about. life extension per se I think is somewhat new to most folks, for most tend to think in terms of health promotion and disease prevention. it's the same thing as we all know, but they need to be educated.
<sjayo> richard, you can go to your friendly life table and perform the calculation in a few minutes.
<sjayo> my graduate students are required to perform this exercise every time i teach my epidemiology of aging course.
<BruceKlein> Jay... do your kids express expectations to live beyond 150?
<BruceKlein> http://thequestforimmortality.com/_wsn/page2.html
<sjayo> no, i think they're quite realistic.
<ag24> HAHA
<sjayo> i'm not joking my friend
<Mind> Like father like kids
<sjayo> although i do have a smirk on my face
<ag24> "realistic" like "pessimistic"
<Mind> So that would mean you also have no expectations to live longer than Jean Clement/
<Mind> ?
<BruceKlein> beautiful kids... btw
<sjayo> aubrey, do you really think you're going to live to 150? honestly???
<ag24> "optimistic" like "idealistic"
<ag24> my expectation is bimodal, but...
<RichardJSchueler> If you were to throw caution to the wind, and were forced to put 10 million dollars into research that would lead to technology which slowed aging, where would you put your 10 million?
<sjayo> it's a yes or no answer
<ag24> the modes are 95 and 100, and...
<sjayo> good question richard.
<ag24> the probability of 100 is currently about equal to the probability of 90
<ag24> for sure I think it's <10% that I'll die between 20 and 500
<ag24> sorry 200 and 500
<sjayo> 10 million wouldn't be enough, but i think the answer is already contained, at least partially, within our own genome. studying the genetics of centenarians will, i believe, reveal numerous pathways.
<RichardJSchueler> I ask this because from my limited overview of your initiatives, your focus seems ot be more focused on research of the basic animal, and not so much randomly throwing money at experiments such as the sirtis folks are doing
<sjayo> i'm strongly supportive of what the sirtris folks are doing, i spoke there last summer and believe they are taking exactly the right approach to this issue.
<RichardJSchueler> Did you hear of Michael Rose's approach? Via directed evolution?
<ag24> argh fast typing, both 100's above should have been 1000
<sjayo> yes, but don't expect directed evolution of humans any time soon, at least not in this democracy.
<Mind> So you might take a Sirtis Supplement...if it passed double blind placebo studies in humans....your first supplement?
* Maxwatt has joined #immortal
<sjayo> perhaps
* Kalepha has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
* Maxwatt has quit IRC (Quit: JWIRC applet)
* Maxwatt has joined #immortal
<sjayo> wow, no more burning questions?
<RichardJSchueler> What question if asked of you would result in actionable intelligence of great value?
<RichardJSchueler> What type of question is the ideal question for a man of your expertise, with a mind towards progress
<RichardJSchueler> Is there a question you wished we were insightful enough to ask?
<sjayo> yes
* GregH has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<Mind> As we pass the 40 minute mark...I just wanted to remind Professor Olshansky that he can remain as long as he desires or leave at his discretion.
<sjayo> there is one critical question in our mutual effort
<sjayo> and it concerns me greatly
<sjayo> all of the work on decelerating aging must begin with animal models
<sjayo> it will eventually progress through other mammals to humans...
<sjayo> but there is one fundamental problem
<sjayo> the one characteristic that distinguishes us from all of the other animals is our cognition
<BruceKlein> hopefully
<sjayo> and there is no way to address how life extension on other animals influences their cognitive functioning in a way that is relevant to us
<BruceKlein> agree on the importance of this, Jay...
<sjayo> unless we know with certainty that life extension interventions work effectively on the mind as well as does on the body, then we must proceed with great caution.
<Elrond> Dr. Olshansky,
<Elrond>
<Elrond> I've come late to this discussion so forgive me if this question has already been asked (and you can say so and I can look at the answer in the log)
<Elrond> I understand you believe/have believed this is the first generation where life expectancy might actually decrease, and I'd agree with you if technological progress were to suddenly stop today, but what is your rational for making such an assertion in light of the fact that technological, including biomedical technology is progressing faster now than it ever has before, and that trend is only accelerating?
<sjayo> i'll answer elron's very good question
<ag24> I disagree. Igrant that all we can obtain here is negative results, but the restoration of all assayable behavioural features by a given therapy should in my view be enough evidence to proceed with human therapies.
<sjayo> first of all, life expectancy has already decline in numerous nations, especially sub saharan africa.
<sjayo> i would encourage you to read our nejm paper where we outline why we're headed in this direction.
<sjayo> also, life expectancy gains have not been accelerating, they have been decelerating.
<Mind> but we are still gaining
<sjayo> if all you're looking at is a correlation between technology and life expectancy, i'm afraid there is an inverse relationship.
<Mind> in most areas of the world
<ag24> Jay - I don't think you have (either in print or informally) ofered an opinion as to whether the famous Oeppen/Vaupel trajectory will go negative (Note: not just decline from 2.5/10). Do you have a view on that - specifically re the best-performing nation in any given yar?
<sjayo> we are still gaining in most parts of the world, but the obesity epidemic, which is already here and measurable, is about to rear its ugly head. you are about to see the publication of several articles indicating that cardiovascular disease has already reversed or is about to reverse.
<sjayo> best practice life expectancy from oeppen/vaupel is non-sensical as far as i'm concerned.
* Mind1 has joined #immortal
* Mind has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
<sjayo> as you know, i've shown the same image with height and weight and running speed and come to equally ridiculous conclusions using linear extrapolation.
<Bart1> so, by refrring to obesity, you mean it is not only a technology issue, but also related to individual will-power?
<ag24> pnonsensical for predictive purposes, I totally agree - you should have seen my use of a famous Onion piece in Berkeley last year
<RichardJSchueler> which onion piece?
<ag24> http://www.theonion.com/content/node/29626
<sjayo> it's an excess of 50-150 calories a day, that's all, but the problem is that we have a younger generation that is already obese at alarming rates, and it's growing worse by the day.
<ag24> my point was that the correlation has only worked for the past 20 years because of Japan
<sjayo> this is a cohort phenomenon -- it won't show up in period life expectancy for another 5-10 years or so, but it'll appear first among blacks and hispanics.
<Bart1> what would be the main cause of obesity in your view?
<Elrond> yes, but several interesting treatments for cardiovascular disease are on the horizon, which though perhaps aesthetically unpleasing to some, may greatly decrease obesity as a cause of “premature” death. And we aren't a huge step away from being able to replace whole organs. Bioartifical kidney's are in clinical trials now, liver models are in use in scientific laboratories. Even if Aubrey's ideas were to completely not pan out it seems we still could ex
<sjayo> eating too much and exercising too little.
<RichardJSchueler> I'd be willing to bet that many folks are most interested with the ferrari's of longevity achievement, and not so much homw many people will be forced to drive the camry's of healthspan
<Mind1> So is that what you mean by and inverse relationship between life expectancy and technology...young people sit are with their tech toys all day instead of getting exercise? :)
<RichardJSchueler> I.e. If the rest of the world goes to hell in a handbasket, it's nice to know that the tech is there for those that are willing to work for it :)
<Elrond> I'm certianly not disagreeing that obesity is bad btw
<Bart1> ok, but in the context of education, politics, etc...
<ag24> RJS - you are quite right - sjayo - you are right too in terms of predictions, but RJS is focusing on aspirations, which can eventiually influence trajectories
<sjayo> elrond, i hope all of this come to fruition. however, i don't make forecasts on technologies that might come to pass, i tend to focus on what we can see. if we make forecasts on what might be, then the sky is the limit.
<sjayo> put yourself in the shoes of the chief actuary at the social security administration and how you would make such forecasts.
<Elrond> But today, not at least taking a conservative approach on what "might be", amounts to next to no predictive power
* Guest2 has joined #immortal
<Elrond> considering our technological trends
<Mind1> good point elrond
<sjayo> actually, you are about to see something along the lines you suggest in our new macarthur aging initiative forecasts
<Elrond> i look forward to it
<ag24> I am pleased to find myself increasingly in demand from actuaries, and they care a lot these days about the influence of aspirations on subsequent trajectories
<BruceKlein>;-)
<Mind1> what...incorporating possible new medical tech in demographic forecasts?
<RichardJSchueler> racing technology always makes it's way down to the consumer, just takes a decade
<sjayo> yes, that is exactly what we are doing. in fact, i am providing a model of how decelerated aging will influence basic demographic variables such as population growth.
<ag24> mind1 - yes, they know what they don't know (or at least they are more careful in guesing what they don't know)
<ag24> sjayo - right - I bet you're not decelerating it enough though :-)
<sjayo> more importantly, my colleagues and i are beginning a new project on measuring the economics of the longevity dividend.
<sjayo> what is enough aubrey?
* Guest2 has quit IRC (Client closed connection)
* Nigel has joined #immortal
<sjayo> our projections extend out to 2050
<ag24> sjayo - right, I've heard - very happy that you're allocating effort to that
<ag24> sjayo - enough deceleration per year
* Elrond sets mode: +o Mind1
<sjayo> what is enough?
<ag24> as you know, 10% deceleration = escape velocity
<sjayo> actually, one model goes beyond 10% deceleration
<Mind1> whoa!!
<RichardJSchueler> You've probably seen this talk: http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/140 Do you account for the decline of birthrate whic seems correlated to increases in wealth and longevity?
<RichardJSchueler> or is there a third cause whereby birthrate's decline not because of longevity or wealth, but some other unknown variable, or perhaps global "fashion"?
* Elrond sets mode: +o BruceKlein
<ag24> sjayo - fabulous - i.e., people experience decreasing mortality rate, right?
<sjayo> we are using TFRs in the range of 2.0 to 2.2, but we're considering testing the implications of going to 1.2 as in some european countries.
<sjayo> right aubrey
<ag24> I'm overjoyed
<ag24> glad I stayed up!
* Guest6556601 has quit IRC (Ping timeout)
<sjayo> and we're decelerating mortality in two ways -- through the delay methodology i developed a quarter century ago, and by altering the slope of the total and intrinsic mortality curves.
<ag24> fine - just so long as individuals experience decreasing personal mortality risk in your model, it's what we need modelled
<sjayo> i believe it will be quite enlightening. i hope to have a manuscript written by next summer.
<Mind1> My question is, besides writing congress and telling them to support the longevity dividend, in your view, what can Imminst members do to generate more publicity and more funding for aging research?
* Nigel has quit IRC (Read error: Connection reset by peer)
<sjayo> no, no, no, not personal mortality aubrey. we deal with populations.
<ag24> let's make sure we're not misunderstanding
<ag24> MDRT is about 7.5
<Mind1> put my question on hold
<ag24> 1.1 to the power 7.5 is 2
<RichardJSchueler> TFR is tasty fruity refreshment's right?
<sjayo> that's impressive math. just think of your usual mortality curve, and then put a weight on it so the slope changes.
<ag24> thus, a 10% per year decrease of age-specific mortality rate constitutes a non-increasing risk of death per year for actual people who are getti