A new life extension prize

Let us consider rejuvenation technology from the perspective of those who would benefit not from the sale of a cure but from the elimination of aging itself.

Prizewinners will be free to patent their innovations and prevent competitors from offering similar products. This may result in a situation where any practical treatment is prohibitively expensive and out of the reach of the average consumer. Also, prizewinners will be able to extract licensing fees for derivative improvements, and as a result the progress towards a solution may be slowed down.

In the end there is a risk that few will be able to afford the cure. Imagine if the sale price per person was $100,000. But the actual production cost (chemical ingredients, nanotechnology) was merely a few dollars.

With these concerns in mind we see a diverse and deep-pocketed source of funds. Governments, healthcare insurers, and large employers all face financial woes due to an aging population. Groups like these would benefit not from the sale of rejuvenation technologies, but from the eradication of aging.

Here my suggestion is to keep any IP generated as free as possible and prevent any monopolization of the technology developed. Collaborative R&D techniques such as Open Source and Shared Source Development found in the software field are possible inspirations. In actual practice MIT has a "patent improvement license" that acts in a similar way for patentable technology.

By keeping any technology freely (or near as freely) available for anyone to manufacture and sell, the price can be minimized. For the groups mentioned above this plan would be irresistible - and it would open the floodgates for potentially tens of billions in funds.

With this infusion of cash, Aubrey could fund his IBG project. New IP from his research could be patented and licensed under an Open Source license to further fertilize the field. Contestants and allied interests could use this pool for development, and reciprocally the IBG would receive any new IP generated.

I understand your angle myamashita, however, at this point I am still inclined to stick with the profit motive as the driving force. Almost all new technology is expensive, precisely because it is expensive to research new things. People need to develop new tools and new methods. New drugs have to pass through lengthy and expensive approval processes. If there is no profit at the end of the tunnel, then I think no one would undertake the new development.

Just a couple years ago DVD players were 250-500 dollars apiece. Now they are under 50$. All because of the profit motive. No one had to dictate a lower price...it just happenned. Computers used to be the size of a small wharehouse and cost millions to build and operate. Nowadays we have computers that fit in our pocket for less than 300 dollars with a billion times the functionality of the old computers. All because of the profit motive.

I think the open source movement is great. I use some open source software. I am sure it is a trend that will continue to grow and help society overall, but the profit motive is still the best driver of human ambition and ingenuity.

Mind, I agree completely that the profit motive is the best motivator for innovation. I just wish to expand the consideration of who can profit from the elimination of aging, and examine them as an untapped source of funds.

In fact for research the profit motive is a key consideration too. For the research needed we could outsource the work to the best scientists in the world on an open market. Prize programs already exist (i.e. www.innocentive.com). Once Aubrey breaks down his taskwork into bite-sized pieces it could be done.

Also, unlike computers or DVD players the biotech field is a thicket of IP risks, from frivolous patents and predatory patenting to unclear case law. As such the cost of entry is alot higher than it is in other fields. It can hamper innovation unless one has a solid plan to deal pre-emptively with any risks.

I think the major roadblock we have to deal with in the modern world is the length of patents. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, 20 years represented a fairly long period to extract profits, while not significantly hurting the progress of science, because science was slow, relatively speaking.

However, in today's world, 20 years is ludicrous. Look at how far biotechnology has come in the last 7 to 10 years! Patents are no longer just locking down one generation of science, they may prevent three or five generations of successive scientific breakthroughs!

The patents, at least in the biotech and computer sectors, need to be shortened to something much more reasonable, perhaps 7 years, or at most 10. Less time to extract profits, but also less damage to the progress of science. Remember, patents are not allowed to exist because they increase profits. The profits are merely a vehicle to the true intent of patents: promote scientific research. Right now, patents are not doing their job. I don't give a rat's donkey about corporate profits. Sure, it's good for the economy, but what percentage of those profits really trickles down to the little people? Not much. No, if patents are a roadblock to science, then we need to get rid of them. But a system with no patents is probably just as bad (the libertarians may disagree), perhaps worse. I think a shortened patent term will go a long way towards correcting the problem.

If the cure for aging were to be locked up in patents for 7 years, but we could achieve that cure 10 years earlier through profit-driven companies, we'd come out ahead, no? But with 20 year patents, do we really think the profit-driven sector will achieve the cure 20-25 years earlier than a massive push by the government and/or charities and/or "open source" research projects? I think myamashita's on to something: if we can't fix the patent system and its inherent greediness and lack of empathy towards the plight of all mankind, then we should eliminate it from the loop. Or at least attempt to lock up a sizeable percentage of the necessary IP in the public sector and force cross-licensing and reduced costs.

Personally, I think fixing the patent system will work better than trying to pull together an "open source" or government-run program. But I'm a computer scientist, not an economist, so I could be wrong.

Jaydfox, here's something that might be of interest; the Free Software Foundation has produced a framework for a software patent that operates like "open source"...
http://www.gnu.org/p...18-RTLinux.html

It would be interesting to see if it resulted in any derivative works and if the license had legal "teeth".

Something similar could be used to handle anti-aging technology ... provided there's a system which can enforce cross-licensing and eliminate the risk of ideas falling into the hands of those who would lock it away, we'd be able to raise billions from say, health insurers.

Dangling multi-billion dollar prizes in front of the public would also have another benefit, in that it would change people's thinking immediately. Smaller and more innovative biotech firms would leap on it: why make a few million from licensing out technology when you could make billions instead?

It's mostly about the money for most people so it's that incentive that will drive people to invent and share there ideas. Very few of us offer something for nothing. If you did discover a method of rejuvinating yourself why would you give it to the masses? What you would essentially be doing is killing yourself from starvation and overcrowding. There are too many people now in that we will over-populate this entire planet any way why speed it along? In truth the only people I see living for extended periods are either the rich or maybe the genuises that first discovered how to extend life.

That problem with overcrowding and starvation is largely a non-issue in the developed world. In fact, many countries are experiencing population decline. In China where history's greatest single leap in living standards is occuring, the rate of growth in many of the cities is falling like a stone.

Also, the costs of aging are incredible. In the US for example there is $77 trillion (that's right kids, $77,000 billion) in unfunded tax liabilities due to Social Security and Medicare as the Baby Boomers retire. Unless the government wants to raise taxes 40% now and forever or cut old age benefits 60% now and forever, there's no way out of this. No one would ever win on a platform like that, as fiscally sane as it is. Forcibly euthanizing the elderly obviously isn't a starter either.

So from the point of view of a taxpayer, curing aging is a good thing too... it's either that, or choosing a future of bleak poverty. Better to get rid of death than die and be taxed to death.

The other option, which will need to be implemented whether we "cure aging" or not, is to make state-funded retirement available only to those who qualify for medical reasons. In other words, if you're 75 years old and in better health than the average 55-year-old, then I'm sorry, but no free lunch. It should be like disability: if you are unable to work, you get it. If you're still able-bodied enough to work (with any other caveats the medical profession might add), then you should be working if you don't have a private retirement plan.

"Yes, we understand that you paid into social security since pretty much the inception of the system, and yes we understand that it seems unfair. But government isn't about what's fair. It's about what works. What's fair is still important, but it takes second place to what works. And paying you your fair share means bankrupting the economy and causing an economic collapse that would cause the current generation more harm than the harm of not paying you your "fair share". In other words, it doesn't work. Besides, when you pay your taxes, we're not required to pay it back in full, so why should the social security tax be any different? Remember, it's not a contribution into an state-run IRA, it's a TAX!!!"

Curing aging won't be as big a help in the social security segment as it will be in the medicare segment. Social Security needs to be reformed either way; even if we don't cure aging, the system will need to be reformed. But medicare will benefit much more from the medical benefits of curing aging.

Of course, if we can reverse the effects of aging rather than just stop or slow them, then social security can be cut even more than medicare. So the initial benefits would be in medicare, then the long term benefits will be in social security.

Definitely a good idea there, raising the bar so social security is reserved for the neediest of cases... one obstacle in the way is defining "disability" in this case... with all the lobbying that goes on down in DC, imagine having to face the wrath of the AARP!

Some of the Libertarians have proposed something interesting: basically a phaseout plan: first, by topping up the Trust Fund by selling off as many federal assets as possible, i.e. land, resources, and state-owned enterprises. The new funds coming in would be used in two ways:

1) for those collecting benefits currently, to offer them a choice of a one-time cash payout, or to continue their benefits as usual. Given that current benefits do not rise as fast as inflation, many
would choose the payout option.

2) For those that are still working, and contributing, the remaining Trust Fund assets would be used to compensate them back for the contributions they've provided over their working career, as the phaseout is completed. Whether you're a 19 y/o starting out in the workforce, or a 55 y/o in the height of your career, you would receive back everything you've put into the system. In this case the 55 y/o, of course it would be a bigger amount. Everyone would then be free to do with the money as he/she pleases.