Re: 1,000-year lifespan a possibility, Aubrey de Grey

[Guest guest]

Alas, I was teaching at the same time as the talk, but it created quite a

buzz here... He really does seem to be creating a meaningful bridge between

quackery and hard science -- that's getting a lot people excited.

Cheers,

-----Original Message-----

From: old542000 [mailto:apater@...]

Sent: February 16, 2005 6:54 PM

Subject: [ ] 1,000-year lifespan a possibility, Aubrey de

Grey

Hi All,

Okay.

1,000-year lifespan a possibility, geneticist says

Last Updated Wed, 16 Feb 2005 20:28:03 EST

CBC News

EDMONTON - Most people accept dying of old age as a natural part of

life, but some scientists insist we could be living much longer.

Geneticist Aubrey de Grey of Cambridge University figures humans

could live to 1,000 years with the help of biotechnology and various

therapies.

Reaching that goal, however, will take at least 10 years of mouse

trials and another 15 on humans.

" There's an enormous amount of uncertainty, " said de Grey, who gave

an anti-aging lecture at a packed 160-seat theatre in Edmonton. " I'd

say we have a 50-50 shot of getting there within 25 years from now. "

The goal itself isn't far-fetched, said Stein of the

University of Alberta's Centre for Neuroscience. If it doesn't happen

in 25 years, then maybe in 50 years.

" Most of the things he's saying are absolutely true in terms of what

we know about the biology of the system, " said Stein.

De Grey's team wants $100 million a year to fund its research.

Governments aren't willing to pay, so it's appealing to those

attending anti-aging talks to pay $1,000 per year.

FROM JUNE 11, 2002: Study of centenarians shows longevity runs in

families

Others are more cautious, warning the ethics of a non-aging

population need to be considered carefully.

Chemist Hariyanto Darmawan of the University of Alberta agreed it's

realistic to fight aging in 25 years. " But ethical issues will take

longer than that. The politics, too. "

Cheers, Al Pater.

[Guest guest]

Personally I can't take him seriously. We can't even cure cancer and other

diseases; when that happens (if in our lifetimes) maybe I'll start believing

his far-out statements.

on 2/17/2005 1:17 AM, gifford@... at gifford3@... wrote:

> Alas, I was teaching at the same time as the talk, but it created quite a

> buzz here... He really does seem to be creating a meaningful bridge between

> quackery and hard science -- that's getting a lot people excited.

>

> Cheers,

>

>