Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Paypal Co-Founder Backs Anti-Aging Research Prize

Posted by kdawson on Wed Sep 20, 2006 05:04 AM
from the my-mouse-is-older-than-your-mouse dept.
Science
Baldrson writes, "Anti-aging researchers, via The Methuselah Mouse Prize or M-Prize, are receiving an additional $3 million incentive to stop and reverse aging. Researchers win M-Prize money in increments by breaking longevity records for mice or reversing their aging. The philanthropic donation comes from Peter Thiel, co-founder and former CEO of PayPal. Mr. Thiel has pledged to match each dollar donated to the M-Prize with his own 50 cent contributions up to $3 million." The M-Prize was created by Aubrey de Grey, a controversial biomedical gerontologist in Cambridge, England.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Interviews: Ask Aubrey de Grey About Longevity Research 639 comments
There may be such a thing as a conventional scientist -- but Aubrey de Grey is not one. Instead, biogerontologist de Grey has spent much of the last 20 years investigating the science of aging by considering the aging process as a multifaceted disease whose manifestations can be mitigated, rather than an inevitability to merely accept. That might not be unusual in itself, but de Grey believes that by addressing the causes and symptoms of aging, human life can be extended to at least 1000 years — a stance has earned him accolades and contempt in various degrees. (He might not especially mind being called names like "rogue" and "maverick," though.) De Grey is also chairman and chief science officer of The Methuselah Foundation, whose M-Prize for extending the lifespan of mice has been mentioned on Slashdot before. Ask de Grey about his research below; he'll answer the top-rated questions, and we'll publish them in this space. The usual Slashdot interview rules apply — so ask all the questions you'd like, but please confine yourself to one per post.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Paypal Co-Founder Backs Anti-Aging Research Prize 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Heinlein had a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MichaelSmith (789609) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:09AM (#16144624) Homepage Journal

    Pay the money to people with a family history of long lifespans if they breed with other qualifiers. Even if this prize leads to mice with long lifespans it may not deliver usable insights into human ageing

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Er, I'd guess it'd take a long time before such an experiment had any noticeable effect, even if the ideal subjects were willing to participate in it. Heinlein was a science fiction writer.

        • Re:Heinlein had a better idea (Score:4, Interesting)

          by kfg (145172) * on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:33AM (#16144676)
          On a base of 1000 years of selective breeding. In another 200 years they won't be going twice as fast again. In fact most of the improvement is in training methods improvements, not in the breed.

          There are natural limits. Living longer isn't at all the same thing as not aging. People who die at 120 do so having been really old people for 40 years.

          Bear in mind that I have a track record here of being Mr. It Isn't Aging, You've Just Let Yourself Go; and in the 1990s my Uncle Eli grabbed the all time record for oldest licensed driver in American history (he sucessfully passed his test at 104), but after 80 years all bets are off. You degrade, not how you live or what you do.

          Uncle Eli will not be applying to be tested again.

          This prize is aimed at halting the degrading.

          KFG
          • That's why it's [i]with qualifiers[/i]. I think you'd be better off working on eliminating altheimers and other genetic disorders at first, whether they show up early or late. Basically, focus on extending the average useful lifespan. Something like 'How many of your great-grandparents survived and were still able to function without regular assistance until they were 80?', 'Are all your grandparents still alive?'

            It wouldn't be too difficult to come with with a .1% of the population that's not consistant

            • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

              by kfg (145172) *
              'How many of your great-grandparents survived and were still able to function without regular assistance until they were 80?'

              All of mine.

              Are all your grandparents still alive?

              None of mine are, although this is largely a factor of having splipped over the median myself some time ago. My Grandparents were all functional into their 80s. My Mother is in her mid 70s and still mows her own lawn and carries her own backpack.

              However, be it noted that my ancestors, although both long lived and productively long live

              • God, how I should love to have your genes.

                Please, for the sake of future generations, breed.

                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by kfg (145172) *
                  God, how I should love to have your genes.

                  If you had my genes you would likely be dead already. I am a mass of genetic dysfunction. Cystic Fibrosis, Celiac Disease, dyslexic, disgraphic and dyspraxic, with resultant atrophy of childhood skeletal and muscular development.

                  Life is hard and tenuous. Had I been born at the time of my grandparents I would have died at about two years of age. The lifespan of my ancestors does not take into account familial infant mortality.

                  Strangely enough I'm "strong and healthy"
          • Eli ? wasn't he called fred

            from

            http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/ record.asp?recordid=43573 [guinnessworldrecords.com]

            Oldest Driver
            There are two male drivers who were issued with new driving licenses at the age of 104: Fred Hale Sr (USA, b. December 1, 1890) was issued with a driving license in February 1995 at age 104, and drove until it expired on his 108th birthday in 1998. Fred currently holds the Guinness World Record as the oldest living man.

    • Re:Heinlein had a better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Colin Smith (2679) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:51AM (#16144715)
      How is this a better idea? It doesn't help me.

       
      • I think that you missed the point. The idea is that you want [i]more[/i] of these people, but you're not allowed to prevent people from breeding. So you'd be encouraging these people to have a lot of children. They help balance out the lesser qualified that are substantially likely to need more medical care per year on average, cost the same to train yet drop sooner.

        By not paying people money to have kids, you'd tend to limit the number they have in industrial societies. Look at Europe, without lifting

  • Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:12AM (#16144630)
    How much did the guy inventing the serial to USB converter get for expanding a mouse's lifespan?

    • "How much did the guy inventing the serial to USB converter get for expanding a mouse's lifespan?"

      ... he used his prize money to buy a wireless mouse with a drastically shortened lifespan.

  • You get to the age of 300, while still looking 21, and then someone initiates a chargeback.
    Instant death.

  • Hate to see it happen (Score:5, Funny)

    by eebra82 (907996) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:17AM (#16144642) Homepage
    I am definitely buying one of those immortal mice to my daughter. That should teach her a valuable lesson about life.

  • Oh dear. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Funkcikle (630170) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:20AM (#16144648)
    "Mr. Thiel has pledged to match each dollar donated to the M-Prize with his own 50 cent contributions up to $3 million."
    No mention of the 3.75% service charge payable by the recipient of the prize, though.

  • Dawkins (Score:5, Interesting)

    by arun_s (877518) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:30AM (#16144667) Homepage Journal
    I recollect reading in atleast 1 book of Richard Dawkins (not sure which), that ageing was evolutionarily inevitable.
    The reason being that parasitic genes in a host that usually end up killing or harming it will quickly be removed from the gene pool. So such genes are not evolutionarily successful.
    On the other hand, if their effect was triggered only after a certain number of years (when an animal has already performed its main purpose of reproduction), there is no drive for it to be removed from the gene pool. An animal with the parasite would be as successful in spreading its genes as one without it. So over the years, the early-acting bad stuff has been wiped out bit by bit by natural selection, while the latent ones have been accumulating all along.
    I'm sure someone with more knowledge in this will chip in.

    • Re:Dawkins (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) <obsessivemathsfreak&eircom,net> on Wednesday September 20 2006, @06:07AM (#16144752) Homepage Journal
      It's not even the case that one need consider an aging gene as a parasitic gene. Evolution does not work on individuals but rather on populations, and for the population, it is better to have individuals eventually die off to make room for the next generation of random mutations, to try and get a better fit this time around. The population is constantly optimising. The individual is simply static throughout its lifespan.

    • Re:Dawkins (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MichaelSmith (789609) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @06:09AM (#16144759) Homepage Journal
      I recollect reading in atleast 1 book of Richard Dawkins (not sure which), that ageing was evolutionarily inevitable.

      If evolution had meant us to fly it would have given us wings. It didn't, yet we do fly.

      Its called engineering and its as much a result of our evolution as anything else. We already live 2 or 3 times longer than we did "in the wild" because of our engineered environment. I don't see why we couldn't go further.

    • Re:Dawkins (Score:4, Funny)

      by kfg (145172) * on Wednesday September 20 2006, @06:18AM (#16144782)
      An animal with the parasite would be as successful in spreading its genes as one without it.

      Who is the parasite, "me" or "my" mithochondria. It's not an easy question to answer.

      The question of whether or not I am a parasite is easier to answer. Yes, yes I am. A girl has to make a living somehow.

      KFG
      • A g....g.....g...irl?

        Sorry, couldn't resist.
        Just be glad I didn't start off a rant about girls and parasites. ;)

      • Re:Dawkins (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tomhudson (43916) <hudson AT videotron DOT ca> on Wednesday September 20 2006, @06:11AM (#16144764) Journal

        "f there were some mutant strain of mouse that had a dispropotionately long lifespan compared to his peers, free from the negative consequenecs of age, would (s)he not reproduce far more offspring bearing his/her genes than the others, over time?"

        Short answer: No.

        Look to humans: it doesn't matter how long after menopause a woman lives, she's already had all the kids she's ever going to have. She could live to be 1,000, but unless she's fertile and breeding for a longer time, she's not going to be making that big a wave in the gene pool.

          • Bullshit.

            Check ot bacteria. They don't care for their descendants, and they do quite well.

            A crack whore popping out 10 kids is going to have more of an impact on the gene pool than a woman who has only one but devotes more care to raising her child.

            The offspring don't have to live all that long - just long enough so they too reproduce, which is really easy. Or did you miss the lectures on "teen pregnancy?"

            • A crack whore popping out 10 kids is going to have more of an impact on the gene pool than a woman who has only one but devotes more care to raising her child.

              Only if the crack whore doesn't leave her children on the streets so that they die of exposure. There is a big difference between bacteria and humans; a new bacterium has as much ability to survive as an adult one does (if such terms even apply to species that reproduce by mitosis). An infant human needs an absolute minimum of a year of care to

          • Actually, I don't have a source, but I've read that this is already true: humans already live, proportional to our mass and heart rate, way way longer than every other mammal. We _already_ are mammalian methuselas. Most of the tricks people have found to extend life in mice has been revealed to be already done in the human body. All the easy stuff has been covered by evolution.

            The belief is that it's caused by your suggestion above. Other animals don't gain as much from protection of their aging parents
        • "But you conclude correctly, our brains have advanced far enough that we are not shackled by our instincts. I'd just love to see if we use our brains well (for stuff like this anti-ageing thing) and don't end up blowing ourselves in the long run."

          Have you ever watched a beautiful woman pass a group of smart guys on the street. I think there is still some instinct in us ;)
          Yes, I get your point. Yes, I agree. Yes, I am somewhat of a pedantic bastard.

  • Culture of Death (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CatWrangler (622292) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:37AM (#16144685) Journal
    Even with our "short" life spans now, people commit suicide, engage in risky sexual practices, talk on the cell phones while driving, eat fettucine alfredo, etc, etc. What indication is there for a great public need for extended lifetimes? All this will mean is more work. Retirement at 85 until you can get SS benefits? No thank you. Lifespan is pretty ok right now. We need better quality, not quantity of life.

    • Re:Culture of Death (Score:4, Interesting)

      by skurk (78980) * on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:51AM (#16144714) Homepage Journal
      I agree. I don't want to live an unnaturally long life, but I _would_ like to see the future...

      So the day it's possible to cryogenically freeze people, I'm in.

      Imagine being frozen for 50 years, then brought back so you could see the world for 1 year, then frozen for another 50, and so on until your natural death. You could witness the world thousands of years from now.

      THAT would be great.

      • Organ Doaner (Score:4, Interesting)

        by wowbagger (69688) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @07:00AM (#16144928) Homepage Journal
        And of course, you will pay for the costs of freezing yourself, and maintaining the equipment, how, exactly?

        More than likely, it will be much like a couple of SF stories by different authors - the section of Larry Niven's "The Long A.R.M. of Gil Hamilton" wherein a law allowing corpsicles to be thawed and broken up for parts is being considered.

        However, I like a short story I read many years ago - a man has himself frozen, and is awakened. He wakes to find another, older man next to his bed. They strike up a conversation about what has changed - the young man asks about the older man's earrings, which he is informed are antenna. He is then told he is being prepped for heart surgery. "But I don't have a bad heart" the young man says. "No, but I do" says the older man.
        • It's a good point, but you forget the expenses involved. Only the very rich will be able to afford this. And since they can't manage their money while they are asleep, they could lose it at any time and wake up penniless. And that's just assuming normal market factors.

          What about a revolution in 5 years where the country's currency is worth absolutely nothing, but you've paid for 50 years sleep time. You wake up 45 years after the major change with no money, no assets, and no idea what's going on. You'r
    • school till 25, work till 85. retirement till sun blows up. Call me strange but that sound pretty good to me.

      note: assuming sun does not blow up within the next 4 billion years.
    • I'd like to know what the cristian/catholic/islamic/etc perspective on maximizing lifespain is. My understanding of catholic thought is that this life is just a test before you get to get to the good stuff (heaven). So it doesn't make sense to maximise "this life" beyond what is "natural".

      Apart from that, do you think God would approve?

      • Well, at least according to the Bible, no. The Bible describes quickly decaying lifespans from the first generation to each subsequent generative iteration. At the end of this decay, it is legislated divinely than no human would live past twelve decades.

        I'm an atheist, and don't put much stock in such things. Still, you gotta wonder why, biologically and medically, we've done a fantastic job of getting people to live to a hundred, and have been very frustrated not much past that. And interestingly, no

    • All this will mean is more work. Retirement at 85 until you can get SS benefits? No thank you. Lifespan is pretty ok right now. We need better quality, not quantity of life.

      Have you heard about the coming problems with SS? To many people living too long, not enough kids(upcoming workers) consuming too much SS, driving it bankrupt. SS is a pyramid scheme that worked when there were 20 workers per retiree. It's approaching a 1-1. It's unsustainable.

      Think about this: It pretty much takes 18-26 years to tr
  • It was supposed to be part of the standard y2k package along with my jetpack, hover car, and virtual reality system.
  • Bill Gates - genuinely philanthropic - his ego might like the fact that he is the man that's saving the world, but at least he's saving other people.
    The paypal guy has just looked in the mirror, realised he's getting older, and wants to live longer. He's worked out that if a few days' coding, some neat financial agreements and a bit of luck can make hundreds of millions of dollars; perhaps a few million dollars and some injecting of mice can lead to him living forever. The guy is more Frankenstien than phi

  • Better idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nigel999 (883244) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @06:19AM (#16144788)
    The guy's money is his to do as he likes, of course, but how about funding research into diseases that affect people at a young age - heart disease, obesity, depression - instead of keeping people alive longer than nature intends?
    • You mean over 25 which (I think I remember) was prehistoric life expectancy ? Not that what you suggest isn't a laudable goal nor that it wouldn't increase average life expectancy.

    • Re:Better idea (Score:5, Insightful)

      by caudron (466327) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:55AM (#16147000) Homepage
      how about funding research into diseases that affect people at a young age - heart disease, obesity, depression - instead of keeping people alive longer than nature intends?

      How about not criticizing people for failing to offer their charity in a way not approved by Your Holiness? I for one, would like the option of living for as long as I please to, thank you very much. Are the needs of the elderly less worthy than the needs of the young?

      And while we're at it, how about not suggesting that nature "intends" anything. That's just weird and lame.

      Tom Caudron
      http://tom.digitalelite.com/ [digitalelite.com]
  • First most influential lobby in US is American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) [findarticles.com]

    Those people are lobbying for wasting our money on the research that will make 70 years old people live longer (Alzheimer desease being the most ourtragious example) instead of spending it for the cause of deseases that devaste less fortunate of us. The rich want to live longer too.

    It is important to have respect to older people and provide them good care by their kids, but have a sense of balance, people!

    This is not philant

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cnettel (836611)
      With good care, an Alzheimer patient will live for a very long time. The cause of death is frequently not even related to the disease, it could be anything that people generally die of, or even something quite curable (an infection, a moderately benign tumor, the list goes on), but where the unability to communicate with the patient, and the patient's own unability to realize what's going on, makes it go untreated. In fact, I would argue that Alzheimer is a prime example of the situation where treatment wil

  • Painting in the attic... (Score:4, Funny)

    by fahrbot-bot (874524) on Wednesday September 20 2006, @11:35AM (#16146830)
    The M-Prize was created by Aubrey de Grey, a controversial biomedical gerontologist in Cambridge, England.

    There's a painting of his cousin, Dorian Gray [wikipedia.org] in his attic.

    • Re:A prize seems redundant.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kfg (145172) * on Wednesday September 20 2006, @05:43AM (#16144696)
      Funding research motivates a single lab. Offering a prize motivates all of them.

      For good or ill stupid little trophies presented at awards ceremonies is a motivator for most people. The prize looks like a lot of money, but really, compared to what you'll likely have to spend to collect it it's just a stupid little trophy.

      KFG
      • They're about something far more important. Social status. The winner of a prize gets to say "look at me, I'm better than everyone else". It's all about fitness to breed and sexual selection. The drive to win these prizes is built in.

         

    • "I'd prefer to donate to cybernetics systems, replacing your old parts with electronic parts are a lot more "natural" form of human evolution."

      I don't think so ...

      Isn't it better to not need a replacement in the first place (or is prevention now not seen as better than a cure).

        • It costs money and a high-tech, energy-intensive infrastructure for what you propose. Prevention is cheaper. Partial cyborgs don't drastically reduce demands on food stocks, etc, either - there's still the biological component which has to be supported.

          Its not like you're going to replace the brain any time soon ... and even if you could duplicate it computationally, it would just be a dupe - it wouldn't be the original. YOU would still cease to exist. Just a copy of you would be running somewhere as a s

        • Please enlighten me on why you think that engineering cybernetic implants that won't need excessive maintenance or energy, compared to their biological counterparts, is somehow easier than biological improvement. As an example, we have every reason to believe that "grown" implant hearts would have a much longer lifespan/MTBF/whatever than any electromechanical counterpart we are even close to achieving right now.

          The point about space colonization might be more valid, but the pure facts of exponential popul

    • What would we do about our pensions if we all lived longer? Change them.

       

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.