Is the Methuselah Mouse Prize relevant?

My reason for asking you what the mission statements are is to force you to review and impose more clarity, if necessary, in the setting of the cornerstones of the foundation. A specific and honest mission statement becomes the anthem and ethos of the company. It is a standard by which any decision and direction can always be counted to be measured by. It can be a single sentence or a short paragraph based on how specific (or not) you want to be. But it is the one thing that stands firm and unchanging in the organization. I cannot emphasize enough how important it is to start with this in place. So I hope you will respond even if it is only to copy and paste text from the "obvious pages".

From the mission statement will flow the strategic objectives and then the tactics of implementation can be designed accordingly, congruent with the mission statement.

- the PP is much easier to understand than the RP, and that counts big in PR terms

hehe.. I'm not sure about that. Read it to yourself a few times...

But seriously, it is futile for me to argue on PP vs RP in context of PR or research value (which is something I want to do) without your mission statement, or to propose anything else of value. With a mission statement firmly in place, logical proposals are prevalidated and vetoed only on the basis of other constraints.

Nevertheless, until as CEO you do publish the mission statements, I will move on generically, not needing to be bound by a definition of a formal statement but based on my assumption of what the missions are.

Perhaps I may not have been specific enough but I have mentioned in previous posts that the information on the site must be ultimately targeting three types of visitors:

a) Scientists & academic community (further subdivision here between the two is possible)
b) The Press
c) The Layman

Each have their own unique informational needs that need to be addressed and each have their own unique opportunities of promotional and revenue generating activities. Now this is ecommerce 101 stuff but it is surprising how many websites still have this design flaw.

With these three "conversation" streams taking place it becomes easier to decide on content because you know far better who it is you are 'talking" with, what their needs and interests are.

Not sure about content? Just pass it through the old filter/yardstick - you guessed it - the mission statement.

Now the above is as generic as you can get and basically attributable to any business model. Specific goals are needed to personalize it for MF. Is it your one of your objectives to raise money - heck, of course it is!

But how? Money is everywhere, people can't wait to get rid of it. They line up in cues so they can empty their credit cards. But it is as slippery as an eel to grab. So you must make it come to you. Thankfully we are on the Internet - where businesses can be created at light speed (and vanish just as quickly) and you have are talking about the one thing that money can't buy yet everyone wants more of - bigger than space and far more controversial - TIME.

The key is to commoditize the promise of the MF. You have already started to do this after a fashion by publishing donors names, selling coffee cups and T-shirts but this is not even a scratch on the tip of the iceberg.

Yes, real, legitimate and scientific anti-aging is the Next Big Thing and the MF can become the nexus and possibly an institute in its own right. A most exciting project.

Mission statements please.

Edited by prometheus, 10 July 2004 - 09:43 AM.

Hi,

If you must:

The Methuselah Mouse Prize is the premier effort of the Methuselah Foundation. It
is a contest designed to accelerate progress towards real longevity-enhancing
medicine, promote public interest and involvement in research on healthy life
extension, and encourage more such research by providing a financial incentive
to researchers.

The Methuselah Foundation is a non-profit 501©(3) registered organization. We
are a group of dedicated professional and non-professional VOLUNTEERS who
believe that the control of aging is forseeable preserving health and wisdom in a
world that sorely needs it.

However, I have to say that I'm getting a little tired of the unnecessarily rhetorical
content of your posts here, combined with the fact that you're clearly not reading
either my posts or the site with any real attention to detail (since in both the site and
my last post it is clearly stated that Dave Gobel, not I, is the CEO) and your failure to
cancel the vote with which you began this thread despite our having clarified that it's
based on a factually incorrect assumption about the existing MMP rules. If you have
real concrete suggestions, as opposed to methods that we all already know to come
up with those suggestions, let's hear them. Otherwise, please remember that I am a
very, very busy guy (as are all the MF volunteers) and the sooner you get to the
point the better for everyone.

Cheers, Aubrey

Sir,

It is a pity, you could not have left your previous post at the first two paragraphs so we could move along. Now I am compelled to clear the haze (we are all possessed of pride, but some of us choose not to trip over it):

1. The unnecessarily rhetorical content is fact interwoven by my opinion. It is my preference to expound on ideas and not deconstruct them.
2. I have read the content of your posts and the MF and MMP websites and yes, they both all state the DG is the CEO. However, CEO is as CEO does, and with all due respect to DG all the evidence is pointing to you as being in that seat at least for the purpose of this discussion.
3. There is no failure to cancel the vote as there was never a decision to do so. As you have admitted in your posts about the presentation of the facts regarding the competition:
a) prone to misunderstanding,
b) a need to clarify the situation
c) we are having trouble getting the concept of the RP across in a variety of ways
4. The factually incorrect assumption is based on the ambiguity of the information provided.
5. Whether my suggestions are concrete or not should be the subject of the board of members and not just your opinion.
6. As you say you already know of methods to improve the site - well if this is the case simply say so and get on with it! You are certainly not going to be inducing too many more suggestions by criticizing those who are freely giving their time to improve a vehicle by which you obtain financial benefits.
7. We all have jobs, family and various commitments. Admittedly a back injury that has kept me at home has given me more time to spend on this board. Do not presume however, that your time is any more valuable than mine.
8. Please be reminded that you invited my comment. I did not seek yours. I pointed out what I perceived as fundamental flaws in the prize structure and presentation.
9. Given that these flaws could be turned into opportunities for improvement has brought us to this point. Unfortunately, the continuous justifications, rationalizations and posturing rather than a call to action must eventually force one to conclude that the manifestation of these deficits is due either to incompetence or complicity.

Cheers

Edited by prometheus, 11 July 2004 - 01:50 AM.

prometheus,

As a volunteer to The Methuselah Foundation, I commend you on your willingness to support our efforts in improving the structure of the prize to ensure final success. As you undoubtedly know, this effort is a long haul and should be approached as such. So I urge you to relax and be patient. I ensure you that we are moving forward with all the effort we have at our disposal. I agree with you that we have a lot of work to do, but there are many suggestion to consider and not nearly enough volunteer time to carry them to completion. It would be nice if you would keep your suggestions friendly and precise, so everyone may enjoy entering a conversation without fear of unproductive accusations. I am fairly new to the volunteer group, but I am fairly certain we all value productive criticism.

To avoid misunderstandings, I suggest letting the foundation initiate poll's on suggestions under consideration. That way the discussions may be more forthcoming and productive. The last thing we need is damaging 'yelling' and unnecessary pressure.

Regards,
Thor.

Back to the business at hand.

What follows will be a series of suggestions covered on a number of posts over the next few days.

We have on record the mission statement of the MF:

The Methuselah Foundation is a non-profit 501©(3) registered organization. We
are a group of dedicated professional and non-professional VOLUNTEERS who
believe that the control of aging is forseeable preserving health and wisdom in a
world that sorely needs it.

who is the administrator of the MMP whose mission statement is:

The Methuselah Mouse Prize is the premier effort of the Methuselah Foundation. It
is a contest designed to accelerate progress towards real longevity-enhancing
medicine, promote public interest and involvement in research on healthy life
extension, and encourage more such research by providing a financial incentive
to researchers.

Question: who are the members of the board of MF? (who are the decision makers)
(the website suggests DG and AdG - are any of the advisors and sponsors part of the board?)

1 Delineation of the objectives of MMP which is a contest:

(a) to accelerate progress towards real longevity-enhancing medicine
(b) promote public interest and involvement in research on healthy life extension
© encourage more such research by providing a financial incentive to researchers

1.1 Suggestion: amendment to mission statement:
(a): to accelerate progress towards longevity-enhancing medicine
("Real" implies inferentially that there is longevity-enhancing medicine which is not real, predicating doubt on all longevity enhancing medicine. This distinction is unnecessary as medicine is a profession which is known to be "real")
(b): promote public interest and involvement in research on longevity-enhancement
("healthy" implies implies inferentially that there is unhealthy life extension. Whilst is is true that "unhealthy" life extension can exist by subjecting geriatric patients to extreme life support measures a change in wording from life to longevity diminishes that the negative association)
©: encourage more such research by providing (financial and other) incentives to researchers
(as incentives include promotion, recognition and other intangibles it would be prudent not to delimit incentives as financial by either removing the term or adding "and other")

1.2 Suggestion: addition to mission statement:
Incorporating a statement that clarifies that longevity-enhancing medicine is associated with genetic interventions that seek to extend period of cellular vitality and reverse cellular aging processes. (the methodology further enables the differentiation from real/unreal and healthy/unhealthy)

2 Aligning mission objectives to prize structure:

2.1 Suggestion: Abolish postponement prize and focus all efforts in reversal prize
Applied science progress is a function of available technology. In the study of genetics we have evolved, from inducement of random mutations and observation of phenotype followed by complementation studies for gene isolation and identification, to more precise controls of regulating gene expression by technologies such as RNA interference. Microarray studies enable massively parallel data acquisition on gene regulation and expression. Similarly we have advanced in our capability to deliver exogenous genes to an organism by both infective and non infective vectors without the danger of nuclear genomic insertion. There exists today the technology to target and deliver genes to an adult organism in discrete tissue types based on the choice of vector. This implies the immediate availability of valid experimental design and applicable therapeutic strategies where new gene function can be introduced or existing gene function can be suppressed.

The merits of studies associated with germline modifications will always exist, however they are not directly relevant to the immediate needs of an aging population. This is because efforts must be focused on the proof that genetic longevity enhancement (GLE) interventions will work on adults. The momentum of germline investigative efforts around the world will hardly be changed by such a prize. What is desperately needed but extremely scarce are investigative efforts to show how emerging knowledge on aging processes can be most rapidly transferred from lab bench to bedside. This can only done by testing hypotheses against a somatic gene intervention model. The pillars of phobia in the biogerontologic community that prevent a critical appraisal at the prospect of interventions in humans will only begin to crack once demonstrations in model organisms have taken place. Not having to consolidate the enormous germline hurdle brings the reality of such goal considerably closer.

As per the mission statement: (a) to accelerate progress towards real longevity-enhancing medicine - this can best be served by increasing the awareness of the need for demonstrating GLE somatic interventions that work. More general studies designed to unravel molecular pathways and the processes of the aging mechanism will continue whether the MMP exists or not. What needs to be promulgated is the urgency to make a start now on converting what we know to prospective treatments to retard aging. This can only be done by focusing on the sorely neglected area of GLE in the somatic context.

Dear Thor,


you say:

It would be nice if you would keep your suggestions friendly and precise, so everyone may enjoy entering a conversation without fear of unproductive accusations.

I was not aware I was being unfriendly nor imprecise. On the contrary, I have gone to great lengths and voluminous rhetoric, as our learned friend Dr de Grey will surely attest, to explain my points with due diligence and caring. I should also be permitted to defend myself if my intention or understanding is at issue.

and you also say:

To avoid misunderstandings, I suggest letting the foundation initiate poll's on suggestions under consideration. That way the discussions may be more forthcoming and productive. The last thing we need is damaging 'yelling' and unnecessary pressure.

I am afraid the foundation has forced this situation. The website has been up for quite some time with no change to the ambiguous material. I was compelled to comment when I considered entering the competition. I welcome the opportunity to stand corrected if and when it can be shown to me that I have erred.

A further note on actual poll. Assuming that on the premise that one can extricate the meaning of what the founders of the prize intended, but failed to articulate in proper form, in terms of distinction between RP and PP such that the vote to create a new category is invalidated, the fact remains that we have 6 votes for abolition of the PP versus 3 for no change. Considering that the 3 votes for no change were cast coincidentally with the posts from methuselahmouse, reason and kevin (all associated with the MF) it comes to no surprise.

Well, I noted some unfriendly tones, but maybe I am being sensitive.

Yes, you are very precise. That was just a general suggestion. You have lost me on some of your suggestions. They are simply to technical for me. I am just a mere activist

By the way, I did not have trouble distinguishing between RP and PP, and don't se the option of "abolishing the PP" in the poll. Which choice do you refer to?

As I see it, it is all about when the interventions where started. Not about what the interventions where. I think it is far to technical for the general public to relate to germline or non-germline interventions.
http://www.methusela...g/structure.php

Edited by lightowl, 11 July 2004 - 05:13 AM.

Now let me get this straight: you have no problem distinguishing between RP and PP but you think it is far too technical for the general public to relate to germline versus non-germline interventions. Do you mean by this that you think the public understands RP and PP because it is less technical? I would be glad to hear what you understand of this.

As for your point about it being all about when interventions get started, it is in a sense correct so long as the same interventions could also be used in a human being.

I am not concerned what manner of methodology and when it is used in the mouse model so long as the same methodology could be used in humans. This is what I have issue with.

Do you know why I think it is so important that it must also be able to be used in humans?



(BTW "abolishing PP" = Change the criteria to longest lived non-germline engineered mouse)

I personally had to look up 'germ line' the first time I read it, so I was not familiar with the term. That may be because English is not my first language, or it may be because it is a term not used by non biologists very often. That is why I think the postponement and reversal notions are easier to explain.

Postponement is for the oldest mouse.
Reversal is for the best late-onset intervention.

Also, I think it puts very little restrictions on the method, which is desirable to get as much diversity in interventions as possible. It may be that someone figures out a method which has nothing to do with 'conventional biology research'.

For the human interventions, I think the mission of the foundation is to raise awareness on aging interventions in the mainstream media, which journalists are not highly educated. The best way to do that, I think, is to show them actual living beings that are extraordinarily old. Thereby bringing to surface the notion that human interventions might also be feasible. To do that it does not matter if the current interventions can be directly ported to humans.

Since scientists exploring the aging processes in mice are bound to learn more about those processes, it may be that they realize, with some luck, that a tweak in the mouse interventions could make them usable in humans. That would of course be excellent.

Do you know why I think it is so important that it must also be able to be used in humans?

I agree that human interventions are desirable and will certainly boost the media but I think it is an unnecessary restriction.

Please tell me why you think human portability is so important 'at this stage' ?

Postponement is for the oldest mouse.
Reversal is for the best late-onset intervention.

Sounds like you are reproducing verbatim what is on the website, rather than explaining in your own words what it actually means which is why I am troubled by the definitions themselves as provided.

Also, I think it puts very little restrictions on the method, which is desirable to get as much diversity in interventions as possible. It may be that someone figures out a method which has nothing to do with 'conventional biology research'.

This is where we get into trouble with people not conversant with fundamental biology because it predisposes some to think there are some "unconventional" possibilities of treating aging which lies on the same plane as using unconventional medicine to cure disease such as homeopathics.

Again it comes down to the website which should do a better job of explaining things to the layperson. Things such as what we know of the molecular biology of aging, and how each contestant's entry relates to providing a solution. Aubrey has a multi-pronged plan for dealing with aging via his "strategies for engineered negligible senescence". In similar fashion and for the purpose of making it clear (and interesting, compelling and inspiring) to the layperson, a categorization of possible interventions should be provided and where the competitor strategy fits in.

I have covered the topic of journalists on a prior post when challenged by Kevin. I'll sum it up by saying that those who report on science are a lot more conversant in these areas than you give them credit for.

I appreciate your loyalty to the Methuselah Foundation and to its members. May I suggest that your first loyalty be towards the discovery of human interventions in the shortest time possible. If you follow that to its logical conclusion you will end up exactly where I am standing at the moment.

Prometheous - My computer locked up the last time I tried to answer, so I'm going to reply in bite sized chunks.


...1 Delineation of the objectives of MMP which is a contest:

(a) to accelerate progress towards real longevity-enhancing medicine

1.1 Suggestion: amendment to mission statement:
(a): to accelerate progress towards longevity-enhancing medicine
("Real" implies inferentially that there is longevity-enhancing medicine which is not real, predicating doubt on all longevity enhancing medicine. This distinction is unnecessary as medicine is a profession which is known to be "real")...

***There is indeed "unreal" medicine out there. We are quite keen to make this clear - and to support/initiate efforts to promote real medical solutions. We are not speaking of the profession of medicine - the statement speaks to medicine as interventions. So, what about this..."To accelerate progress towards real longevity-enhancing solutions."

By the oldest mouse, I mean the oldest mouse. That can not be misunderstood.

By best late-onset intervention, I mean most effective ( resulting in longest life extension ) intervention initiated as long after birth as possible.

I think we should keep an open mind about new "unconventional" possibilities, and not focus only on current knowledge.

I have covered the topic of journalists on a prior post when challenged by Kevin. I'll sum it up by saying that those who report on science are a lot more conversant in these areas than you give them credit for.

I have read all your posts, and that is exactly the post I was referring to. I think we need non-science journalists to report on this as well to get as wide an audience as possible.

I appreciate your loyalty to the Methuselah Foundation and to its members. May I suggest that your first loyalty be towards the discovery of human interventions in the shortest time possible. If you follow that to its logical conclusion you will end up exactly where I am standing at the moment.

I am not certain where you are going with this. I am primarily fighting for personal immortality, but that is not the focus of the Methuselah Foundation. I am trying to do as much as possible where I can to further the ImmInst mission. What is the fastest route, I think, is not possible to predict at this time. Many things can still happen that would change my focus radically.

Edited by lightowl, 12 July 2004 - 01:24 AM.

(b) promote public interest and involvement in research on healthy life extension

(b): promote public interest and involvement in research on longevity-enhancement
("healthy" implies implies inferentially that there is unhealthy life extension. Whilst is is true that "unhealthy" life extension can exist by subjecting geriatric patients to extreme life support measures a change in wording from life to longevity diminishes that the negative association)

***We are constantly challenged in press interviews and myriad encounters where folks say the last thing they want is greatly extended frailty-span. The word - healthy - is a positive word and is without doubt part of our mission. We also wish to use the simplest possible words to describe our mission (Occam's Razor). So, no - this part stands as is.

© encourage more such research by providing a financial incentive to researchers

©: encourage more such research by providing (financial and other) incentives to researchers
(as incentives include promotion, recognition and other intangibles it would be prudent not to delimit incentives as financial by either removing the term or adding "and other")

***We are quite focused at this point of the Foundation's evolution on financial incentives for first specific performance of predetermined outcomes. This is central to our mission. However, times and circumstances may change that. Can you tell me if you have anything specific in mind for the "(other)" that you mention? I would be happy to consider such.

1.2 Suggestion: addition to mission statement:
Incorporating a statement that clarifies that longevity-enhancing medicine is associated with genetic interventions that seek to extend period of cellular vitality and reverse cellular aging processes. (the methodology further enables the differentiation from real/unreal and healthy/unhealthy)

***The Foundation offers a prize for specified outcomes. It has no official position as to what means, methods, interventions, theories, modalities or philosophies are or are not appropriate. So, that is why we will not add the word "genetic". The prize is like the Moon...It was there for the US and CCCP to race toward. It cared not about which political philosophy was best - it favored neither competitor. If you got there first, you got there first...end of story. It's like the sword in the stone. If you can draw it out, so be it. It doesn't care if the one doing it is well known or embarrassingly far from the mainstream.

Aubrey's SENS is a very highly reasoned set of observations that may lead to likely starting points to "mine the possibility space" of previously unexplored opportunity. Following SENS or any other regime is not a requirement to win MMP. To win the prize you just have to design life extending technology to satisfy the criteria.

When the Longitude Prize was announced, every educated person knew very well that Astronomy would win. Everyone educated was absolutely certain that clocks were a ridiculous and hapless approach beyond the pale of the ludicrous. If there was any mistake made (and it was near fatal to the success of the prize) it was that the board of Longitude (the judges) were stacked with Astronomers who had a perverse interest in seeing that their discipline was best funded - and that any other approach was starved of support through institutional ridicule. There is a very fine book by Dava Sobel - Longitude - which details all these matters. We have done deeply extensive research on the history of prizes to do our utmost to repeat the good lessons learned and avoid the bad.

2 Aligning mission objectives to prize structure:

2.1 Suggestion: Abolish postponement prize and focus all efforts in reversal prize

***For myself, I prefer that all the money go to the Reversal Prize and that there not be a Postponement Prize. However, when my children donated, they opted for the Postponement Prize. The Methuselah Foundation deals with this divergence of points of view by offering two prizes and allowing people to vote directly with their financial support. I as an individual who is nearly 52 am delighted that most of the money is going toward the Reversal Prize. However as the CEO of this public charity, my personal opinion must not color (to the degree possible) something this fundamental. Additionally, the credibility of the Foundation and it's mission has been dramatically enhanced by the existence of the PP - without it we would not have had our inaugural winners (Bartke) - and the resulting press. We would not have been able to announce all the current competitors doing real work. The PP has proven to be an extremely important element of the Foundation's evolution in that it makes us real TODAY. Almost all of our good press to date has been due to its existence. Over time, we expect that is likely to change as the Reversal Prize makes its appearance later this year.

What is desperately needed but extremely scarce are investigative efforts to show how emerging knowledge on aging processes can be most rapidly transferred from lab bench to bedside.

***this sounds right

This can only done by testing hypotheses against a somatic gene intervention model.

***It seems unlikely that we are at a stage where we can narrow things down to "only's". Since knowledge in this field is set to explode, we are likely to look back on what was near certainty and discover that what is logical today may turn out to be dead wrong.

The pillars of phobia in the biogerontologic community that prevent a critical appraisal at the prospect of interventions in humans will only begin to crack once demonstrations in model organisms have taken place.

***I argue it will begin to crack when there is competition from non-gerontological and non-US investigators, funding from non-academically gated sources and demands from the public who begin to think "hey - why not me?" - and tells their representatives to hurry up!!!! I also agree with what you say.

I appreciate that you want to improve this effort. Many significant scientists have seen sufficient merit in the prize to make a donation - some quite significant. No doubt all of them saw flaws - but decided to support it anyway - we are grateful for their faith and we HAVE made significant progress and improvement over a very short period of time...and will strive to continue to improve. Since I don't know your name, perhaps you've already made such a donation? For my part I've spent at least $20,000 of my own money getting things this far, donated thousands to the prize, pledged another $25,000... and others have done the same! - for which one day we will all be quite grateful - for a very very long time.

I know your time is valuable. Thank you for it. By the way can you help me with one thing? Your original thesis was that we are making a mistake in the way we were describing the criteria for the Reversal Prize - and I asked if you would suggest alternative wording. I apologize in advance if I missed your response above...can you point it out to me?

Thanks,
David Gobel
Chairman and CEO
The Methuselah Foundation

Thank you for your responses David. It's good to hear from you.

My objective in this debate has been to help forge the MMP into what may become the deadliest weapon against aging that the world has yet seen (which would make you King Arthur and Aubrey Sir Lancelot ). I have made my views known and have seeked to provoke challenge from members so that they can think outside of the square. I may have annoyed some on the way by using these tactics, but I will not apologize for it. If I have forced some to rethink their positions then I have succeeded - and we all benefit as a result.

I can foresee the use of the MMP as a lens to converge and encourage development in the technologies most likely to retard the rate of aging in humans. Now this is the diametric opposite of the present shotgun approach which seeks to achieve the objective irrespective of method. Two totally different approaches, each with its own strengths and weaknesses - depending on how far we have progressed technologically. The earlier we are in the technological timescale the more valid the shotgun approach is.

I'll take you up on your sending a man to the moon parallel. Does it matter if he gets to come back? Or that he even survives the journey there? How about if he is so radiation blasted that he dies a few weeks later on his return to earth? But let's not limit ourselves to the parameters of making the trip safe, we can broaden the scope further by imagining the enormous variety of entrants each with their own idea of a propulsion system. We know that scientists experimented with all sorts of propulsion systems but in the end only one met the required criteria. Similarly with aging there are numerous possibilities and the range of possibilities is inversely proportional to scientific knowledge.

With a reasonably good understanding of cellular biology most people will agree that there are limited ways of influencing cell function. The cell in controlled by DNA and DNA is itself regulated by the external and internal cellular environment. This regulation is based on ancient biochemical processes that we are still unravelling today. The probability of discovering a non genetic intervention that will fundamentally change the aging process is extremely unlikely. Thus we are compelled to focus on genetic interventions.

With each level of consideration the scope becomes more limited. Once you incorporate the criteria of reproducibility in humans and that the intervention must be available to the public within the next 15 years the scope is even more constricted.

If we follow the above scenario then to go from pre clinical efficacy to market can take between 3 - 5 years and then the time for pure R&D is only 10 years. It does not leave much time for crossing the germline to somatic chasm. You are better off focusing your R&D using somatic intervention on mammalian models like musculus. To perform whole genome embryonic interventions you use a model organism with a shorter lifespan like drosophila.

I understand the benefit of the PP insofar as conscripting the early adopters. It is strategically and entrepreneurially sound to bring legitimacy to the MMP without going too far out of the mainstream. Now it is time to evolve. The RP should be given the lauchpad and fanfare it deserves because it will bring the greatest return on investment.

If you do anything David, please continue to learn as much as you can about cell biology and the mechanisms of aging. There are biochemical and physiological constraints as to what can be done and any solution will have to be bound by these constraints. We are talking about people's lives. Each day spent delaying only ends up killing more people. One day when aging comes to be looked on as a genetic disease (which in my opinion it is) and books are written about the progress of discovering the solution would you not prefer to have the foresight of a King George?

(With the Longtitude prize they still needed astronomy - they had to know the position of one star - the sun )

On SENS: I mentioned SENS as an example of categorization and not as the only strategies available (personally I have a far simpler to implement and more efficacious one which I hope to write about soon - perhaps Aubrey may invite me to do so on his journal - if he can ever forgive me).

On supporting the prize: I am happy to work out some arrangement whereby I can make more applied contributions to the MMP and the MF as I wholeheartedly support and endorse the efforts. Whilst this is a great way to debate online it is not the best way to work on specifics. I will email you direct and you can let me know where and if I can be of help to further the project.

Sincerely,

Harold Brenner

Prometheous - I look forward to your emails. Do you have an email address for me?

re:Longitude prize needing the SUN - Quite Right [tung] LOL

Looking forward to a long and mutually productive collaboration.

Dave

Check your PM.

To all interested parties: please check out the new poll and cast your vote!

Harold,

Thanks for posting the poll:
http://www.imminst.o...=ST&f=44&t=3960

I'll add to the homepage soon.

BJK

Excuse me for interrupting your interesting discussion... I would like to enter the Methuselah Mouse Prize, but I don't know the rules... Where can I read the fine print, buy a mouse or two, and how do I oficially enter the contest?

Is there a specific "race" of mice or rats, ("ames" etc.) that everybody has to use (such as in an auto race everybody must have the same type of automobile)?

If any race of mouse or rats can enter, who can advise me which is a long lived mouse (or rat) to begin with?

I would like to enter the "Reversal" prize, and I want to start with a mouse that is 52 years 10 months old in mouse lifespan, because that is the age at which I began my own life extension program in earnest (June, 1998). Where can I read some statistics of mouse lifespans? Does anybody know of a mouse life insurance company that gathers mouse lifespan and mortality statistics? (I am joking... but I do need to study some statistics.)

Thanks,

Ellis Toussier

Heh

Hi Ellis,

You can read information on how to enter to win the Methuselah Mouse Prize here.

http://www.methusela...org/compete.php

We welcome any questions you may have. Please feel free to email us directly at main@methuselahfoundation.org and we will do our best to answer them.

Kevin