The time has come for great goals - an interview with Aubrey de Gray - chapter two

The time has come for great goals - an interview with Aubrey de Gray - chapter one

WHO, FDA and new medicine

Feinerman : The FDA has a very long process of testing new drugs and therapies. What do you think about medical tourism and biohacking?

de Gray : There have always been places with less stringent regulatory systems for new drugs - and medical tourism is not new. I think the main thing that we should do is better to use those who decided to go abroad to be treated: we should make their lives as simple as possible for them to report on the treatment received, and how well it worked, side effects and so on. long after treatment so that such information can be analyzed and used in planning by future studies. People who provide experimental therapy have no incentive to collect such data, so they are usually never collected.

Fainerman : Does SENS or its related companies conduct regular meetings with the FDA to pave the way for new anti-aging medicine? Some components of the SENS 1.0 panel are already in development or clinical trials, while others will appear over the next 20 years. These new anti-aging therapies use a completely different, damage-based, rather than compensatory approach, and need new clinical trial protocols and a new health paradigm. The transition period has already begun, and we must use it wisely, otherwise the United States could become outsiders in the medical world.

de Gray : I look forward to the day when we will have such meetings, but so far they have not been. In principle, everything is fine, because companies engaged in various components of SENS really hold such meetings. The FDA and its counterparts around the world are up to date.

Feinerman : We already have many excellent results in the laboratory that can save human lives right now, but the lack of finances and an overly regulated medical system make it impossible for them to be in clinics in the coming years. At the current rate of progress, they will become obsolete even before clinical trials. Do you think that translational medicine is becoming a bottleneck?

Note: Although 90% of deaths in the United States and at least 80% of US medical expenses are caused by aging:

National Institutes of Health Budget ($ M): ~ 30,000
The budget of the National Institute of Aging: ~ 1 000
Budget Department of Aging Biology: ~ 150
Translational medicine (max.): ~ 10
SENS fund budget: ~ 5

These numbers speak for themselves, they are all that you need to answer when all the methods discussed above are in clinics.

de Gray : I think it is improving. The idea of ​​real rejuvenation is becoming more and more recognized. So now I would say that the main bottleneck is still at a very early stage: financing of works that are not yet attractive for investment.

Feinerman : The current WHO agenda is a complete shame! They know that the fire is near, but they intend to extinguish it with gasoline. Do you agree that the concept of "healthy aging" is nonsense? Aging cannot be healthy, because if you are healthy, you are not aging. WHO encourages people to be more comfortable with aging, rather than fight it. They recommend spending billions to build more nursing homes and buy more wheelchairs instead of investing these resources in anti-aging biotechnology! This is ridiculous!

de Gray : Well, I think we need to do both things: we need to maintain the quality of life of older people, as far as possible, with the limited tools that we have today, and we also need to develop more effective tools. Terms such as “healthy aging” do have a double color: on the one hand, of course, there is no such thing, but on the other hand, terminology helps to emphasize that the goal of all our work is to increase healthy life, and the increase in whole life is just a side effect .

Research rejuvenation and finance

Finerman : When I ask people to donate to SENS, they often say that their pair of bucks doesn't matter. Of course they are wrong! Every dollar, even every cent is important! For example, how many people can read this? We count 10,000. And if each of you donates $ 50, only $ 50, per month, it will be more than $ 5 million a year! That will double the current SENS budget. So together, we can change the world. We can't wait for governments and large pharmaceutical companies to fund rejuvenation research. (In fact, they will not take risks; they will wait for the first results.) We can do it ourselves! What can you say to our readers to encourage them?

de Gray : You perfectly said. Another good way is to calculate how many dollars it will take to save a life by sacrificing SENS. According to my estimates, a budget of $ 50 million per year will allow us to go three times faster than now, and will bring victory over aging by about a decade. About 400 million people die from aging within a decade, so the funds transferred to SENS have a price of about one life per dollar. No other reason is close to him.

Fainerman : Another doubt that people usually express, how does the SENS foundation do anything meaningful with such a small budget? While NIH and many others have hundreds of millions a year and cannot beat aging, SENS has only $ 5 million. I answer that SENS is a very effective organization, focused on goals and results, and not on the process. Everyone can take a look at the SENS website and look at the reports for all the years.

de Gray : Thank you! - that's right. Almost all government-funded research is almost useless, since their impact on health will be minimal. SENS is distinguished by the fact that it represents a coherent, comprehensive plan to defeat aging.

Note: Unfortunately, I agree with Aubrey de Gray. If you carefully study the work of NIH or NIA ... well ... You will find hundreds of publications on obesity, lifestyle, air pollution and their impact on life expectancy. Didn't you know that obesity, smoking and a lot of alcohol are harmful to your body? How will this information help us create new drugs for cancer, Alzheimer's disease, or atherosclerosis? Do we need more similar publications?

You can also find many publications on calorie restriction and various genetic manipulations with worms and other model organisms that mimic it. Calorie restriction everywhere! Although we have known for twenty years that it does not work for people. In 2015, $ 500,000 was provided to projects such as the “Large Randomized Study of Vitamin D, Omega-3 Fatty Acids and Decreased Cognitive Function.” This is not a joke, this is a real research work! You can find more here . All of them are useless, because you cannot use them to create real anti-aging therapies. Only a small part of these works is important in the sense of a victory over aging. Do you know what is most interesting? This is all your taxes, all your money!

At the same time, really important research projects, such as work on glucoseepan (which will end many age-related pathologies, such as vascular stiffness, chronic inflammation, hypertension and save many lives) in the Spiegel Lab at Yale are constantly underfunded and would be closed last year without the financial support of SENS and the German millionaire Michael Greve. Finally, the cost of the implementation of the rejuvenating panel in mice at the current estimate will be only 1-2% of the Apollo program. And the same amount of money and time has already been spent on the Sirtuins , who obviously did not give anything.

Fainerman : Can you say what Project | 21 is , why is it so important, and how can people help?

de Gray : Project | 21 - the name of our appeal to wealthy people. Of course, we welcome donations of any size, but so far a large part of our income is donated by a small number of rich donors, so we are doing our best to attract more people like them. Other people can help by donating what they can and by encouraging friends who are richer than them!

Note: Project | 21 is a new initiative created by SENS to put an end to aging through human clinical trials, starting in 2021, through investments in anti-aging biotechnology.

Through three new programs from The Bridge fund, The Center of Excellence and The Alliance Program, Project | 21 will provide the ideal environment for realizing opportunities and investments.

For Project | 21, $ 50 million is required, at least half of them will come from Group 21 members. Group 21 will include 21 philanthropists, each of whom will donate from $ 500,000 to $ 5 million. The remaining support will be provided by grants, the efforts of our activists and co-financing strategies. $ 5 million has already been contributed by German millionaire Michael Greve. Thank you, Mr. Greve! You are our hero!

Fainerman : Some people prefer to donate not to organizations, but to a specific project or laboratory. Of course, this is not the best and effective way to manage your finances, but are you considering this option?

de Gray : Of course. We sometimes have projects that cannot be financed, because there are too few “unlimited” resources for them. Therefore, no problem, if someone wants to limit donations to a specific project, we will be happy to work with them.

Fainerman : Cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies have allowed new and effective ways of philanthropy and investment. Before our eyes, various no-name companies easily collect tens of millions of dollars through an ICO into clearly questionable projects. While the really important areas such as regenerative medicine, anti-aging biotechnology and bionics are constantly in dire need of funding. Are you considering an ICO for Project | 21? I think it fits perfectly with ICO!

de Gray : This is very important for us, and we work closely with various people who are experts in cryptocurrency. Acne Buterin, who created Ethereum, for example, our donor. We very much hope to attract significant funding in this area.

Human psychology, not science, the main problem in the fight against aging

Feinerman : When I ask people if they want to live for hundreds of years, many of them say no, but when I ask them differently, if they want to look and feel at 70 to 30, they say yes, of course! I I hope you understand: people are afraid of big numbers. People do not want to live forever, they just do not want to be ill forever, although large numbers logically arise from eternal health. Have you ever regretted your statements about a possible life in 1000 years? People usually get them wrong. Some of your colleagues say that without such statements your ideas would be more popular.

de Gray : It has always been a difficult decision. Yes, people are afraid of big numbers, and they are not very good at arguing about the future. But most importantly, in the long run, this is what I say, what I consider to be true, and that I can always give logical answers to any challenges. If I had said in 2005 that we could live 150 years with anti-aging technology, and people would ask, why not 250, I would not find a good answer, and people would not believe me. In the end, it is always better if you tell the truth.

Fainerman : What do you think about the work of 2013 “ The hallmarks of aging ”, undoubtedly inspired by your family of damage? They look more sophisticated and complex. But at least does this mean that scientists have finally demystified aging and recognized it as a solvable problem?

de Gray : You are right, they were definitely a rethinking of SENS. There are a lot of mistakes in them, but the basic idea of ​​damage recovery and the principle of "divide and conquer" are identical. They are no more difficult, they are similar. And yes, this means that researchers finally recognized that aging is now quite well understood and solvable.

Feinerman : Although biomedical gerontologists are no longer afraid to talk about aging, like 10 or even 5 years ago, which in itself is very good, they are still very skeptical, at least publicly, of our ability to put it under medical control in foreseeable future. You know many of them personally, is this their real opinion? Perhaps in a personal conversation, they are more optimistic?

Note: I think gerontologists need to learn a lesson from physicists and engineers. When physicists realized that our Sun was using nuclear fusion reaction, they were delighted with the idea of ​​building a fusion reactor. Enthusiastic, they began to work and immediately came across a lot of problems. Although the reaction itself is very simple, the processes behind it were complex.

However, the engineers did not quit their jobs and did not say: “We have a poor understanding of these processes, so let's stop working and start exploring the sun for another 100 years.” They continued to work as hard as they could, built many working prototypes, and now we are much closer to a commercial thermonuclear reactor than ever before. And they are full of optimism! If you ask any physicist whether it is possible to build such a reactor, he will answer: “Yes, of course!” And if you ask an engineer when we build it, he will probably say: “20-25 years old, and this may be much earlier if we have enough funding. ” Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

But when you ask a gerontologist if we can beat aging, he will surely call you a psycho. Why? They are both engineering problems!

de Gray : Well, maybe some of them are a little more optimistic in a personal conversation than in public, but in general they don’t - the problem is that they are fundamental scientists, they are trained not to believe in anything if they don’t have direct evidence. They just do not like to speculate on the time frame, even in private.

Finerman : Yes. With the current pace of progress, everything beyond 2030 is a complete uncertainty. However, I know for sure that if we want to have something working in 2030, we now need to work very well in the right direction. But why do many gerontologists consciously or unknowingly choose the most ineffective and wrong way - changing the metabolism with the help of genetic manipulations or medicines to slow down aging a little bit - and use it as evidence (!) That we cannot radically rejuvenate a person and increase its duration of life? Such an example is in itself absurd and practically impossible in any field of research or engineering, with the exception of biomedical gerontology!

de Gray : It is not specific in the fight against aging. In all areas of research, leaders always think that they are right, and it takes them a long time to understand radically new ideas.

Fainerman : Perhaps this is the reason? Maybe we need less gerontologists who are just studying aging, and more biomedical engineers who really fix the damage? In other words, we have to switch attention from the study of aging to anti-aging engineering. Since aging is an engineering problem, from the point of view of gerontologists, its solution looks like “not my job”.

de Gray : Exactly. The main problem is that “only” 17 years ago, no one had a coordinated plan to combat aging, so it made sense to continue to perceive gerontology as a fundamental science, in which the priority was to study aging rather than manipulate it. And 17 years is not a very long time in science, so the people who are the most important and influential are still people who formed their way of thinking in the era before rejuvenation.

Faynerman : Unfortunately, most biomedical engineers, those who are actually engaged in rejuvenation, do not want to be associated with the extension of life, do not participate in its discussions, and usually remain silent. For the direct question, however, they are not very optimistic about the extension of life. It's amazing to hear such statements from the best researchers in the forefront, especially from those who recently promised to print or grow all human organs by 2035 and grow new limbs by 2030. If this is not about extending life, what is it about? Why do they behave like this? Because of pro-aging trance? Or are they too specialized and cannot see the whole picture?

For example, cell engineers make predictions, as if there is no progress in bionics, and engineers in bionics make predictions, as if there is no progress in cell engineering. Each of these technologies is unlikely to change the world, but together their influence will be enormous!

de Gray : You understood correctly. These technologies are developing largely independently of each other, so their leaders in many respects do not know what progress has been made in other areas. Since SENS is based on the principle of “divide and conquer”, it is impossible to assess the overall result with optimism if you are not informed about all the components. This is the main reason why I organized conferences in Cambridge since 2003, and in March 2018 they are being revived in Berlin in order to unite the leaders of these spheres.

Fainerman : Thank you very much for your great interview! Our conversation was fascinating! I wish you fulfillment of all desires as soon as possible. When we succeed, I hope that in a hundred years we will shake hands, walking along the Mars City Embankment, which Ilon Musk promised to start building in the 2020s. Ah, and when you meet him, remind him, please, that we will not be able to colonize Mars until we have overcome aging! For microgravity and cosmic radiation have the same consequences for the human body as premature aging.

de Gray : Thank you for your support!

Afterword

We live in an exciting era - the Era of Very Fast Progress in Science and Engineering - an era where many things that were science fiction just five years ago are now common, and many things that are nothing more than science fiction will now be common in the coming years. five years. At the same time, we live in the Age of Great Uncertainty — an era when our small, everyday decisions can have a huge impact on the next few decades. Step to the right - and we will overcome aging in twenty years. A step to the left - and the whole areas of research will rise another twenty years (as it was in the study of glucosean).

New rejuvenating medicine is still very young and fragile, like the first spring flower after a dry and cold winter. And now she especially needs our support! Even in such relatively advanced areas as stem cell research or cancer, there are gray, under-funded and researched areas that need our help.

Of course, you want to know the timing - when will we overcome aging? Do you want to know if you will win personally? Nobody knows. I deliberately did not ask Aubrey de Gray about the timing and forecasts. No more predictions. Enough For they give you the illusion that some good, smart guy will do all the work, while you can just relax, wait for him to finish, and "live long enough to live forever." But he can not! This is too big, too ambitious a project for one person. Now you know - your future is only in your hands. Not “live long enough ...”, but “work long enough ...”! I always say that scientific and technical progress is a function of effort, not time. The only way to get rid of painful uncertainty and get a final answer is to support real research on rejuvenation right now!

How can you help? Well, if you yourself are a researcher, then spend your time and finances on sensible approaches based on repairing the damage that rejuvenating therapies will soon produce. If you are a businessman, donate to SENS and its allies - Project | 21, Methuselah Foundation , Forever Healthy Foundation , Life Extension Advocacy Foundation, or directly support research groups. Invest in associates or open your own. If you are a celebrity, use your fame to draw attention to the problem and research. If you are an ordinary person, well, you can encourage your more influential friends and do almost the same thing - just on a smaller scale!

You may ask: is it real? Hope we gave you enough examples. Yes, of course, it is real. Moreover, it is already happening before our eyes! The correct question, however, is whether it happens quickly enough to help us — living adult people? And the answer may not be. Of course, there may (and will certainly be) many breakthroughs in science, but we cannot rely on probability and chance when we speak of human lives (especially our own). We must rely on a good plan, a reasonable budget and our efforts.

So the next question is: can we accelerate progress? Yes we can! All we have to do is what Aubrey de Gray said many times, and what I said above, unite against our main enemy and help the engineers. But will we take the decisive step? Although people rarely think and act rationally, I prefer to be cautiously optimistic! See you on Mars!

---