Longevity Dividend Action!

Ok, just starting a topic in the Action and Outreach forum to discuss any ideas, suggestions, etc. that you guys might have related to the Longevity Dividend. A group of "Nobel Laureates, representatives of national and international health organizations, and scientists" will be on Capitol Hill (Washington D.C.) on September 12, 2006 in a meeting with senators to try and persuade public policy related to aging research. (the original proposal in The Scientist was for $3 billion, but that may have been scaled back a bit, I am not sure)

Anyone have any ideas on positive things that could be done in relation to this "Longevity Dividend"?

I thought of the idea of contacting your individual senator (if you live in the US), which can be done at this link. All you need to do is click the pull down menu and choose your state to see your senators, then click the "Web Form" link to contact them.

In my opinion, this could be a change in the tide of political support for anti-aging research. I am also of the opinion that this could be one of the most important projects ever as it relates to our goals.

Yes, writing the senators is a great idea. This should be supported at every opportunity.

I'm really beginning to feel like far too much of an "armchair scientist" in all this -- the Longevity Dividend initiative coming out like this has definitely inspired me to see what I can do about getting into something a bit more practical in the way of research. Even if I wrote to a senator, would it do any good considering my degree is in electrical engineering rather than anything biological? (And on that note, I'm wondering if there are ways I could put my EE background toward something pertaining to life extension?)

I know that Aubrey was originally an engineer (Computer Engineering I believe). Engineers are generally taught how to solve problems as opposed to (some) scientists who simply study the problem. Well, I suppose that isn't exactly correct, but I know Aubrey has mentioned several times how the thought processes of an engineer are more likely to yield results for certain types of problems.

In any event, I wish I was trained in science as well, and wish I could have an opportunity to be on "the front lines" of the battle against aging. I did rather well in physics, but comparatively not as well in chemistry in college, (didn't take any biology) so I am not sure I would do so well pursuing a science degree, or working as a scientist...

[glasses]

Hehe, well, I enjoy studying problems AND solving them -- I can only study something so long before my brain starts nagging, "Yes, but what can we DO about it?" And I'm at that stage now with regard to life extension and such. I'm hoping an engineering background will be an asset here. At any rate, I didn't have any trouble recognizing that SENS was an engineering proposal...it's structured like some of the test procedures I've worked on, albeit in a totally different area of study.

I'm really beginning to feel like far too much of an "armchair scientist" in all this -- the Longevity Dividend initiative coming out like this has definitely inspired me to see what I can do about getting into something a bit more practical in the way of research. Even if I wrote to a senator, would it do any good considering my degree is in electrical engineering rather than anything biological? (And on that note, I'm wondering if there are ways I could put my EE background toward something pertaining to life extension?)

If you think like an engineer that's excellent. Just get yourself up to date on the biological science info (read lots of articles), and put that engineering skill to use.

This seems to be me to be something that the mainstream press will bite on, involving Washington as it does. So mailing it to all the journalists you can think of should be helpful.

Something I occasionally mention but perhaps too elliptically may be worth reiterating here: compared to physics/maths/computer science, biology is stupendously easy to learn without formal training. Biology needs a good ability to absorb facts without necesarily understanding how they fit together, but doing the fitting together once the pieces are all absorbed is almost always trivial. (I speak here not about making advances in biology, of course, but about mastering existing, known biology.) All you need is a couple of good large textbooks, dedication and a little time. And once you've done that, biology is like any other science in terms of making advances: scientific innovation, whether curiosity-driven or goal-directed, is an extremely transferable skill, so if you've done it in physics or whatever, you can do it in biology too without being taught how.

I did rather well in physics, but comparatively not as well in chemistry in college, (didn't take any biology) so I am not sure I would do so well pursuing a science degree, or working as a scientist...

That was exactly me five years ago. It's up to you, don't blame it on fate.

...., biology is like any other science in terms of making advances: scientific innovation, whether curiosity-driven or goal-directed, is an extremely transferable skill, so if you've done it in physics or whatever, you can do it in biology too without being taught how.

What do you think of the procedures to verify theoretical hypothesis in biology?

As an engineer I can make changes to a system that was humanly build quite easy and verify whatever my aim was. Maybe as a physicist I need a million dollar of measuring equipment, like a particle accelerator or something, but there's no life involved. Maybe the risks of nuclear experiments are life threatening but the risks here are more indirect.

In biology, this seems a bit more complicated if ethics are considered.

bump

I don't understand your question.

...., biology is like any other science in terms of making advances: scientific innovation, whether curiosity-driven or goal-directed, is an extremely transferable skill, so if you've done it in physics or whatever, you can do it in biology too without being taught how.

What I mean is that there (from my knowledge and perspective) are differences in the mentioned disciplines.

If I, in my IT domain, have a hypothesis regarding some problem or opportunity, I change or build some non-human entity and simply apply power and test it. If I made an error and the subject fails, or produces smoke, bad luck. Some investment in time and material, nothing else. I could burn myself maybe, but that's about all. In physics, the same principle, the financial and human risks are of the same origin, but larger. In a nuclear experiment I might blow up an entire city but I can move the experiment to a unpopulated place.

In my view the difference between the above disciplines and biology lies mainly in ethical consequences of applying your personal skills. Building hypothesis and theoretical knowledge in biology might be the same as in other disciplines, but verifying them is an entire different issue since (human) life is directly at stake here. We move to animal experiments as some sort of risk management, but it is still life that is subject and direct risk. The fact that it is not possible to separate the living subject from the experiment in biology, as is possible in IT or most physics experiments, makes biology a very special discipline when it comes to verifying and testing theoretical hypotheses.

What do you think?

it is not possible to separate the living subject from the experiment in biology, as is possible in IT or most physics experiments, makes biology a very special discipline

Great point brainbox..

Biology is the study of how information is stored and propagated through time, evolution, and the chemical entities which store and propagate it. The propagation is of course 'life'. If in your IT work you developed a self-evolving non-human entity as some are attempting, you would be studying the same phenonmenon in a different substrate and it would deserve the same considerations. We are just at the point where we are mixing chemicals to form a primordial soup in this respect with AI though and have a ways to go before creating artificial life-forms so we still do not see such experiments as having some moral consequence.

I think one must have a respect for and certainly be more aware of the fact that one is intefering with a self-propagating evolving system when doing biological experiments which may not 'end' according to our hypothesis, if only for the purely selfish reason of survival.

All life, of any form, provides a window on the underlying principle of spontaneous creation in the universe, even if it is by our hand and we are agents of that creation. All forms deserve consideration as being special, a consideration which in my opinion deepens as the complexity and consciousness of the life-form increases. That's a whole other subject though..

Biology is the study of how information is stored and propagated through time, evolution, and the chemical entities which store and propagate it. The propagation is of course 'life'.

This is a very interesting perspective, I did need (and still do) some time to digest this point of view. If I understand you correctly, the storing and propagation through time of information takes place using genome structure as a vehicle.

All life, of any form, provides a window on the underlying principle of spontaneous creation in the universe, even if it is by our hand and we are agents of that creation. All forms deserve consideration as being special, a consideration which in my opinion deepens as the complexity and consciousness of the life-form increases. That's a whole other subject though.

While I'm trying to get some understanding, I think this might be essential to life being an independent, self supporting entity / mechanism. Spontaneous creation coexists with storing and propagating of information. Information itself (and rules, being a special form of information) being the more or less static or conservative part, the spontaneous creation being the dynamic part. So why would this be an entirely different subject?

To get this "back" to the world of models I'm more familiar with, this is quite similar with Object Orientation (OO). An object being a self supporting entity that contains both information (and rules it should adhere to) and operations that act on the information. Inseparable. I will not go into further detail since I do not know yet where this leads to or if it even has use in this context. Well, it remotely leads to a structure for AI.... OO is a paradigm for building models mainly based on a hierarchical structure of specialisation and generalisation, which also might be an important paradigm in biology I guess.

Challenging and stimulating reply, Kevin, thanks.

This also reminds me of a less theoretical issue concerning the massive breading of salmon for the use of human consumption. These salmons are kept in a separated space, using nets, besides the normal living area of wild salmon. Some of the breaded salmon, that seem to have an very different genetic base, escape to the wild environment and are mating with the wild ones, thereby disturbing the genetic path of development of wild salmon.

Everything we do with or to nature can have unpredictable long-lasting effects.

Edited by brainbox, 19 August 2006 - 11:19 AM.