Sherwin Nuland on Aubrey in MIT Technoloy Review

Link: http://www.technolog...e_aging.asp?p=2

---

Sherwin Nuland is a professor of surgery at Yale and an excellent writer.

I especially like this quote..

The sheer output of his pen and tongue is staggering, and every line of that bumper crop, whether intended for the most scientifically sophisticated or for the general reader, is delivered in the same linear, lucid, point-by-point style that characterizes all his writings on life prolongation. Like a skilled debater, he replies to arguments before they arise and hammers at his opposition with a forceful rhetoric that has just enough dismissiveness—and sometimes even castigation—to betray his impatience with stragglers in the march toward extreme longevity.

You go Aubrey..

Sherwin makes no bones where he stands..

I should declare here that I have no desire to live beyond the life span that nature has granted to our species. For reasons that are pragmatic, scientific, demographic, economic, political, social, emotional, and secularly spiritual, I am committed to the notion that both individual fulfillment and the ecological balance of life on this planet are best served by dying when our inherent biology decrees that we do.

Him and Kass must have great dinner parties together..


and further he bases much of his writing on following premise... which should be of no surprise..

Not only does the science seem more than a little speculative, but even more speculative is the assumption on which the entire undertaking is based—namely, that it is a good thing for the men and women now populating the earth to have the means to live indefinitely.

As I read through the article I am struck by the tone of admiration in Nulands words however.. and his astuteness

Even my brief 15 minutes with them was sufficient to observe the softness that comes into de Grey’s otherwise determined visage when Adelaide is near, and her similar response. I suspect that his website photo was taken while he was either looking at or thinking of her.

it was.... I took it.. Adelaide was on his right.. one of the few moments they had to spend together at the hectic IABG10..

Original

and this comment is just plain mean spirited...

De Grey believes that once aging has been reversed in mice, billionaires will come forward, intent on living as long as possible.

... not all billionaires would fund aging just for personal gain.. case in point being John Sperling.

He refuses to budge a millimeter; he will not give ground to the possibility that any of the barriers to his success may prove insuperable.

exactly what the problem of aging needs..

and this makes me howl..

If we are to be destroyed, I am now convinced that it will not be a neutral or malevolent force that will do us in, but one that is benevolent in the extreme, one whose only motivation is to improve us and better our civilization. If we are ever immolated, it will be by the efforts of well-meaning scientists who are convinced that they have our best interests at heart. We already know who they are.

We'd better add 'Aubrey' to the Threats to Life Forum.

To his credit he bashes the whole of biogerontology's efforts to help people live longer in his last paragraphs though.

The whole of the article was more an ode to the genius of Aubrey de Grey than a detraction and he offers only his own insistence that Aubrey's 'grand design will most certainly not succeed' although he doesn't give a single supporting word as to why except the usual 'it's so complex.'.

The paucity of negative comments and plurality of positive makes me wonder if the author wasn't attempting some reverse psychology on the reader.. rather strange actually. You done hip-no-tized the man Aubrey..

A lovely post Kevin, for what I am sure, represents a significant milestone in awareness.

They even put Aubrey on the front page of their magazine. This may be more publicity than he has recieved at Popular Science.

Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn't nuke the whole planet and I (the author) was sure they were going to but was utterly wrong. I'm probably looking for the wrong bad guy. Certainly someone IS going to destroy everyone and everything.

Since badness didn't do this, then good must actually be bad. soooo since Aubrey is a good person - he must be really really bad.

This is from an engineering journal?

After reading the article in it's entirety I think that Aubrey could've done without this particular magazine's publicity.

Paradoxically, his clarion call to action is the message neither of a madman nor a bad man, but of a brilliant, beneficent man of goodwill, who wants only for civilization to fulfill the highest hopes he has for its future. It is a good thing that his grand design will almost certainly not succeed.
...

I have yet to see why Dr. Nuland believes we will not defeat aging at any point in our future (through Aubrey's 'grand design' or not).

...
Were it otherwise, he would surely destroy us in attempting to preserve us.

What a way to end his article....

Wonderful post, Kevin. I can't wait to read the article.

How ironic, but what a nice picture, Kevin. Thanks for posting:

Heh - the editorial on the article is even worse. There is no such thing as bad publicity, however, and the blatant ad hominems and unscientific reporting give Aubrey a chance to respond.

Reason
Founder, Longevity Meme
reason@longevitymeme.org
http://www.longevitymeme.org

More on Nuland, from post made by Kevin:


Link: http://www.acumenjournal.com
Date: 09-12-03
Author: Sherwin B. Nuland
Source: Acumen Journal of Sciences
Title: How to Grow Old
Comment: From the quote below, we can see that Mr. Nuland believes that the quite arguable 'maximum' lifespan our species is capable of should not be increased and instead subscribes to the idea of 'compressed morbidity' or trying to cram all the suffering of old age into as small a space of time as possbile before doing our evolutionary duty and shuttling off only to be replaced by some new and improved version. As with the other articles I have provided links for, please feel free to read my copy so that we may all benefit from his wisdom through discussion and education.

---

How to Grow Old

A physician’s prescription for aging.

SHERWIN B. NULAND

Aging is not a disease. It is the condition upon which we have been given life. The aging and eventual death of each of us is as important to the ecosystem of our planet as the changing of the seasons. When William Haseltine, Ph.D., the brilliant biotechnology entrepreneur who is the CEO of Human Genome Sciences, says, “I believe our generation is the first to be able to map a possible route to individual immortality,” we should cringe with distaste and even fear, not only at the hubris of such a statement but also at the danger it poses to the very concept of what it means to be human. The current biomedical campaign against the natural process of aging is but part of a much larger conception of humankind’s future, in which it is thought by some that parents may one day order up the IQ, complexion, and stature of their intended offspring by manipulating their DNA.

These are not the problems American medicine should be struggling with. Its proper task is not the prolongation of life beyond the naturally decreed maximum span of our species (which seems to be in the neighborhood of 120 years), but its betterment. And if anyone’s life needs betterment it is surely the elderly man or woman still living well beyond the years of vigor and productivity because the benisons of public health and biomedicine have made it possible. The percentage of the aged in our population increases with every passing year, and far too many of these people are doddering. The very gradual increase in life expectancy of previous generations has been replaced by a surge forward: the 20th century saw a 33-year gain, an astonishing figure compared to any comparable period in history. Until these recent changes, population size had the general configuration of a pyramid with a wide base of children, the top narrowing with age. It has now taken on somewhat the shape of a rectangle, as more aged individuals reach the upper levels. As disease treatment continues to improve and public health measures reach a larger segment of the population, this trend will only increase.

Link to Article


About The Author:



Sherwin (Shep) Nuland is the author of the National Book Award winning How We Die: Reflections on Life's Final Chapter. He has also written The Wisdom of the Body, The Origins of Anesthesia, Doctors: The Biography of Medicine, Medicine: The Art of Healing, The Mysteries Within and Leonardo da Vinci. He is a clinical professor of surgery at Yale where he teaches bioethics and medical history. Besides being a regular contributor to medical journals he has also written for The New York Times, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The New York Review of Books and Time. Sherwin Nuland also writes "The Uncertain Art," a regular column for The American Scholar. His newest book is Lost In America: A Journey with My Father. Shep Nuland lives in Connecticut with his family and is working on a biography of Moses Maimonides. Reference

link

Toward infinite lifespans.

I don't like this article as much as the Pop Sci one. The author's venom is all over the pages.

I've walked with Aubrey across the University of Toronto campus. He never struck me as arrogant. If anything, he is desperate--as we all are--because the human condition is one of desperation. The author shouldn't confuse these two points.

The author also makes the popular mistake of conflating the practical and moral arguments against life extension. He makes the howlingly implausible argument that forcing people to die at a certain age is the moral thing to do, but just in case you don't believe that, he reassures us that Aubrey is doomed to fail.

Barring a not-unlikely-global-catastrophe, Aubrey is destined to succeed. If not in 20 years, then in 200. The author doesn't grok this. He can't appreciate the torrent of incentive to create a fountain of youth. He has doubts about the sufficiency of Aubrey's seven points--and so do I--but Aubrey doesn't have to cure everything that might ever kill us. He just has to get us to the next bridge, and his successors will cure problems 8, 9, 10 and so on. Likewise, curing many of the seven problems will involve Herculean, almost-impossible acts of engineering and science. This is just what trillions of dollars and a market can accomplish. It sounds to me like a job for the Methuselah Mouse Prize.

Heh - the editorial on the article is even worse. There is no such thing as bad publicity, however, and the blatant ad hominems and unscientific reporting give Aubrey a chance to respond.

They seem to be wasting significant column space to attack Aubrey but the attacks are not based on any scientific criticism. The tone of the articles may be negative but the lack of substance of the criticism is telling and perhaps the readers will be intrigued enough to do their own research. The Jason Pontin Editorial is particularly nasty. At least the subject is striking a nerve and some people are becoming threatened enough to attempt a hatchet job

Duane

They underestimate the number of closet life-extensionists out there.

In any case this represents a major triumph for Aubrey and for those who know that the science is just around the corner. I couldn't wipe the grin of my face for hours after I found out about the cover.

Whilst some of his science is contentious, we owe much to this man.

On the front page of MIT's Technology Review webpage is this sentence:

Aubrey de Grey thinks he knows how to defeat aging. He’s brilliant, but is he nuts?

Was the editor getting drunk in Vegas when they posted this? I cannot believe a prestegious and respected institution like MIT could let this pass. Not to mention all the ad hominem attacks in the actual article. Holy crap. They must really be scared.

From the last paragraph of the TR article:

If we are to be destroyed, I am now convinced that it will not be a neutral or malevolent force that will do us in, but one that is benevolent in the extreme, one whose only motivation is to improve us and better our civilization. If we are ever immolated, it will be by the efforts of well-meaning scientists who are convinced that they have our best interests at heart. We already know who they are. They are the DNA tweakers who would enhance us by allowing parents to choose the genetic makeup of their descendants unto every succeeding generation ad infinitum, heedless of the possibility that breeding out variety may alter factors necessary for the survival of our species and the health of its relationship to every form of life on earth; they are the biogerontologists who study caloric restriction in mice and promise us the extension by 20 percent of a peculiarly nourished existence; they are those other biogerontologists who emerge from their laboratories of molecular science every evening optimistic that they have come just a bit closer to their goal of having us live much longer, downplaying the unanticipated havoc at both the cellular and societal level that might be wrought by their proposed manipulations. And finally, it is the unique and strangely alluring figure of Aubrey de Grey, who, orating, writing, and striding tirelessly through our midst with his less than fully convinced sympathizers, proclaims like the disheveled herald of a new-begotten future that our most inalienable right is to have the choice of living as long as we wish. With the passion of a single-minded zealot crusading against time, he has issued the ultimate challenge, I believe, to our entire concept of the meaning of humanness.

Beautiful and paranoid prose. In the article it mentions that Dr. Nuland has "cared" for over 10,000 patients. I wonder how much he has tinkered with human evolution by allowing his patients to survive and contribute their deficient genes to the gene pool.

I have often wondered why it is so difficult for biologists as well as bioethicists to understand that man's emerging knowledge and technical competence that has enabled the manifestation of "DNA tweakers" is a part of natural evolution. It is an imperative of any organism to attempt to increase its opportunity of survival.

A bacterium that will add to its genomic library by incorporating a plasmid with new genes thereby leapfrogging process of evolution by mutation. Why is it so unnatural for a mammalian species to discover a means of doing the same?

The ability of humans to modify their genome is as natural as any other evolutionary process and is an inevitability in the development of any organism given enough time to evolve.

Take a look at some of the criticism of the article on their website. Nearly everyone agreed that it was one sided.
http://www.technolog...sp?forumid=1002

Also, you can write a letter to the editor from the main page if you want.
http://www.technolog...sue/mag_toc.asp

...human life is a brilliant flash of light between darkness and entropy, why and wherefore?
link

Michael Jin '08
Stanford University

Wonderful quote.

Jason Pontin has not made himself very popular with his editorial..

http://www.technolog...sp?forumid=1001

Here's a little background on his movement from Red-Herring to Acumen Journal (now defunct) to Tech Review

http://www.technolog...t_id=1000542756

You can see from the post above on Sherwin Nuland's article which he wrote for Accumen Journal for which Pontin was editor that it is not accident that Nuland was chosen to write for TR on this particular subject. Pontin obviously used his prior experience and harmony with Nulands view to sharpen his own axe in another publication. Unfortunately for him, the esoteric is not what the readers of TR are looking for..


I have to wonder if stirring up controversy might not be some kind of weird strategy to draw attention to TR... if so I think its backfiring..

I think Pontin is sincere, but misguided by muddled thinking. It's sad to see him attack Aubrey for having a beard and no children.

Pontin: But what struck me is that he is a troll. For all de Grey’s vaulting ambitions, what Sherwin Nuland saw from the outside was pathetically circumscribed. In his waking life, de Grey is the ­com­puter support to a research team; he dresses like a shabby graduate student and affects Rip Van Winkle’s beard; he has no children; he has few interests outside the science of biogeron­tology; he drinks too much beer. Although he is only 41, the signs of decay are strongly marked on his face. His ideas are trollish, too. For even if it were possible to “perturb” human biology in the way de Grey wishes, we shouldn’t do it. Immortality might be okay for de Grey, but an entire world of the same superagenarians thinking the same kinds of thoughts forever would be terrible. link

Perhaps there's something to be said for the strength of our position when the best arguments our opponents can come up with are silly personal attacks.


Bruce Klein - Aubrey de Grey

I'm happy to have had the chance to buy Aubrey a beer... and stand proud with my friend against the onslaught of ignorance.

As it seems, at 37, Pontin is also unable to escape "decay" which looks "strongly marked on his face" as well. Point is, we're all dying from the disease of aging, so let's work together and find a cure while we're still alive.

Bruce J. Klein

---


http://www.technolog...fo/about_us.asp

Jason Pontin
Editor-in-Chief, Technology Review

As Editor in Chief, Jason Pontin is responsible for the editorial direction of the award winning magazine, Technology Review. Pontin will oversee all editorial aspects of the company’s ongoing growth strategy which includes an aggressive international expansion, a rapidly growing web business, specialty newsletters and signature events.

From 1996 - 2002 Jason Pontin was Editor of the technology business magazine Red Herring. Most recently, he was the Editor-in Chief of The Acumen Journal, a publication which covered the business, economic, and policy implications of discoveries in biotechnology and the life sciences. He has written for many national and international publications, including The Economist, The Financial Times, Wired and The Believer, and he is a frequent guest on television and radio, including ABC News, CNN, and National Public Radio.

To write a letter to the editor, write to letters@technologyreview.com

I think Pontin is sincere, but misguided by muddled thinking.  It's sad to see him attack Aubrey for having a beard and no children.

Deathists can't seem to make up their minds. Do they want population control or not?

I had the pleasure of meeting Aubrey de Grey at the TransVision04 conference in Toronto. He walked up and introduced himself to me (as if I didn't already know who he was!) and began immediately discussing cryonics. I found him to be equally brilliant and charming. The Technology Review editorial was bilious nonsense. If Pontin chooses to define Aubrey as a troll, then I want to be a troll too!

Yes, I think we should be privileged to be "trolls". Goodness, I wonder how many famous scientists living or dead would also be "trolls"? Pontin has disgraced himself, the magazine and its readership. I will be looking for an apology in the next issue, otherwise I will ensure it is avoided within my circle of influence.

I’ve come from the Middle East and in particular from one of the most religious countries in the world. What we are saying here are called blasphemy and apostasy there and sometimes even bear death penalty! Nevertheless I’ve put many of these ideas publicly in my website and I observe a huge surge of visitors. People are beginning to come in terms with the harsh realities of the world that we are living in. Also it must be a very good stimulation for the Americans to see what the rest of the world think and especially the people who have suffered from religious despotism….

Bostrom responds to TechRev attacks on Aubrey de Grey; TR editor responds to H+ community outrage

"The February 2005 issue of Technology Review has a cover story reviewing the research and advocacy for life extension of Aubrey de Grey, founder of the Methusaleh Mouse prize, the WTA’s 2004 HG Wells award winner and a fellow of the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies. The article by Sherwin Nuland argues a bioconservative line that life extension is bad for human dignity. But far more offensive is the lead editorial by editor Jason Pontin 'Against Transcendence'. Pontin says that believing in the transcendent possibilities offered by technology turns people into 'troolls' and points to Aubrey de Grey’s beard and the lines on his face as evidence. The transhumanist community has responded passionately to these ad hominem attacks, and below is a letter from WTA chair Nick Bostrom to Pontin, and his response."

[link]

In Pontin's response I found this little tidbit

When I called Mr. de Grey a “troll” it was of course a literary device: a reference to a line earlier in my editorial where I quoted the writer Bruce Stirling about the paradox that those who were most intersted in using technology to transcend human nature often lived circumscribed lives that seemed anything but transcendent when viewed from the outside.

I think he means "Bruce Sterling", the science fiction writer who did a presentation entitled "The Singularity: Your future as a black hole" for the Long Now Foundation. You can listen to the presentation for free in the Library Section of Long Now, although I would not reccomend it. He tries to be funny but instead just trashes transhumanists and immortalists while revealing he knows nothing about the singularity concept. You can find a previous discussion of this presentation Here at Imminst

I just thought it was interesting how the bio-conservative and anti-tech people are hanging out together.

What little intelligence I have, tells me that Biological Immortality can be achieved. All we can do is support the individuals who are actually doing something about this disease of aging. I do understand that as much people as possible need to know that aging can be conquered by means of science (technology, new techniques, knowledge etc. derived from science) and perhaps most importantly, individuals commited to the cause. Maybe I am a mean person by saying that; all who make attempts to hinder us from conquering aging should not be allowed this Gift of Immortality. I only read the excerpts posted and I do also agree that it is one sided. In utter contrast, I notice that most if not all Imortalists here at Imminst are open minded and are willing to question if the Disease of aging can be overcome; logic says yes.

This has all been very interesting. Controversy produces more publicity for the cause Aubrey is advocating, and if you believe all publicity is good publicity (as reason does) then we're getting a free ride.

I was impressed with the comments on the MIT Technology review forum in response to Mr. Nuland's profile of Aubrey and Mr. Pontin's editorial.

Pontin writes:

I think it exceedingly unlikely that human aging can be “defeated” in any meaningful sense. All organisms--indeed, all things in creation--age. link

Again, he is mistaken. There are a number of organisms which do not show signs of aging such as Tetrahymena, Hydra and Cyanobacteria.

Nuland's not calling Aubs a nut or a troll. It was a terrific article, and if Nuland shows himself up clearly in the last 2 paragraphs as being not a scientist, but simply a clinician and somewhat paranoid bioethicist, well that's his misfortune. And if he doesn't want to live forever it's probably for a common reason: failure of imagination.

I have been talking to people in my daily conversation about the possibility of IMMORTALITY throug the use of Gene Engineering for more then 10 years. What i found is that the most commen reaction i get is. "but i want to die".
That is by people who are in ther 40th or older.
The reason i think is, that they have lived their lifes as an investment in a "good death". They are ready to cash in their chips and claim their rewards in what ever heaven they beliefe in.
That would especialy aply to religios people, which most of us are, including many well informed scientists.