Seriously, I'm quite bemused by the whole Aubrey de Grey/Technology Review imbroglio. It's clear enough that SENS is highly speculative, and that no one should be counting on it, but it's also clearly something that can't be dismissed as pseudoscience at this stage of our knowledge.
My own contribution to the debate so far has been to argue against de Grey, and many of my friends, that there is NOT a moral imperative to "cure" human ageing process - while generally supporting anti-ageing research. De Grey has a much more radical view, but that's okay. These debates need to calm down a little. That's why I called my old on-line column "Eye of the Storm". Why Technology Review's editorship has felt such a need to discredit de Grey is still unclear to me.
Seriously, I'm quite bemused by the whole Aubrey de Grey/Technology Review imbroglio. It's clear enough that SENS is highly speculative, and that no one should be counting on it, but it's also clearly something that can't be dismissed as pseudoscience at this stage of our knowledge.
ReplyDeleteMy own contribution to the debate so far has been to argue against de Grey, and many of my friends, that there is NOT a moral imperative to "cure" human ageing process - while generally supporting anti-ageing research. De Grey has a much more radical view, but that's okay. These debates need to calm down a little. That's why I called my old on-line column "Eye of the Storm". Why Technology Review's editorship has felt such a need to discredit de Grey is still unclear to me.