Dear Dr.
de Grey and others,
There's a lot to cover so let's begin:
I am unsure as to the consensus amongst those who participated in this topic/poll about the objective of the MMP:
As REASON says: "Nonsense - if you can reverse aging, it doesn't matter how you do it. If it takes a genetic manipulation in humans to do the job, then that's what it takes. The best way to run a research prize is not to specify methodologies, but rather results. Then leave it up to the scientists to figure it out."
Easy to say when you're not the one figuring it out. That he does not see any value in methodology is quite clear.
KEVIN seems to agree with REASON:"Actually the primary goal of the prize is not to develop human aging interventions, although I'm sure many people would like to think that will be the end result."
I would certainly like to think that would be the end result. So would the people donating.
Then KEVIN says this: "I do not agree with your assertion for the need for the creation of a separate category which only allows somatic gene transfer techniques in adult mice."
This is quite strange, particularly as he stated earlier on: "There are in reality 'two' Methuselah Mouse Prizes. One is for 'Postponement' using treatments begun when the mouse is young such as the embryonic genetic interventions you refer to and indeed Cutler has a transgenic mouse he is using in this manner. The other prize is the so-called 'Reversal' prize for interventions begun when the mouse is old."
This is disconcerting as any RP interventions can, by definition, only be based on somatic gene interventions.
The fact is that both Reason and Kevin are valiantly attempting to champion the MMP cause against what they perceive as contentious assertions by me. The sad fact is that they are unable to see the point. They are not to blame. They are not scientists or biologists - they are activists and they are relying on the information that they get from scientists and biologists. Information from sources such as the MMP website.
There is no point in me continuing to dissect Imminst denizens posts to prove the point that the source of misinformation is the MMP website. I'm confident you are aware of that already. What is of concern is a resistance to properly articulate the objectives as indicated by METHUSELAHMOUSE: "Doesn't this handle the objection? "For interventions to be accepted as having been begun later, it is essential that you provide us with good documentary evidence that prior to that age they were not given any form of treatment that qualifies as an intervention."
No, it does not handle the objection. It should be made clear because of the contradictory statement that comes before it: "Note that the definition of an intervention, for the purposes of the Reversal Prize, includes any and all mutational or transgenic manipulations.
Documentary evidence? If it is the RP intervention then it can only be performed via somatic gene therapy, and I know of no vector that will transfect every living cell in a mammalian organism. Therefore the evidence can only come from a comparison of a region of interest in transfected versus non transfected cells. If the gene/s is/are introduced via plasmid or any other non-nuclear of non-mitochondrial DNA integration technique similar principles apply.
There are some imperatives that need be considered. This is a contest for scientists - scientific standards of what is permitted and what is not need to be clarified - considering the distinguished collective of advisors mentioned on the site I am astonished at how haphazardly and ambiguously the material has been prepared (perhaps a few too many beers with Dr. Heward). This is a contest for the press - getting that paltry amount of money shoved in their face is not a way to garner their attentions. Focus on the objectives of the prize and the scientists of note participating. Finally this is a contest for people - the ones who will vote for the minister who will influence funding for such projects - where is the material for such laypeople?
You get my drift - the website must focus on delivering information targeted to 3 types of visitors, scientists interested in competing and in what other scientists are up to, journalists looking to report on the latest breakthroughs, and laypeople, some simply curious and others thirsty for facts. The MMP website can act as an interface between hard science and its promise to deliver.
A case study should be reported for each winner, including what was discovered, the methods used and how these relate to human therapeutic opportunities. Contestants should also be similarly featured.
It's frustrating to see so much effort invested in creating a java application to show the increment of a few hundred dollars per day whilst the content of the site has been seriously neglected. As you yourself acknowledge: " Luckily, the important prospective competitors (academics) regard publicity as a fine incentive." All the more reason to focus on prestige and the only way to do that through a website is via its quality and presentation of content.
You also agree on the need to promote the RP approach: "I guess we feel that the fact that the RP is getting most of the money is
already achieving this. Don't you agree?"
No. I don't. We both know the chasm that exists between manipulating an embryo genome and that of an adult. Having a prize amount being greater for RP rather than PP does not say the same as having one prize for one type of intervention. RP, or whatever it is called - so long as methodologically it can be used in humans. In fact, an announcement outlining the commitment of the MF to focus on this objective alone as a means of accelerating discovery would be immediately beneficial. As you say, "We are having trouble getting the concept of the RP across in a variety of ways..."
Best way to deal with the ambiguity is to delete the PP.
The mouse must act as a model organism from the perspective of delivering interventions to humans asap - and this must include the mode of administration. For purely functional genetic studies model organisms with considerably shorter lifespans are available to generate data.
You have embarked on a mission with the most ambitious possible objective - to extend human lifespan and forever change human destiny. Why compromise on this bold journey by doing things half-assed? Worse still, having made mistakes, then refuse to acknowledge, make correct and stride on?
As the mission of the MMP must be to accelerate the rate of discovery of human life extending interventions using m.musculus as a model, the mission of the MMP website must be to provide inspiration through education.
postscript: I have been moved by the passion of the folks here at Imminst. They stand against the tide, sometimes grasping at straws, sometimes briefly glimpsing a tiny snippet of the grand design. Those without scientific training courageously fumble with concepts in their quest, and those with training, well.. there are not enough of those. It is up to us privileged to have the education and training to properly resource and guide the rest. In this spirit I will be shortly volunteering my recommendations for the MMP website.
Edited by prometheus, 08 July 2004 - 05:51 PM.