Prometheus your comment was and I quote:
It's important to clarify that there is no RP type research actually occurring at the moment associated with somatic gene therapy (if someone knows otherwise please let us know). Yes you read me right - none at all.
You are are welcome to refine it now to a more specialized case, and I assume in general you are referencing the aspects of the prize, but that is certainly not clear in your words. I offered an example of research aimed at age reversal.
Mitofection can be considered in the class of "Somatic Gene Therapy" albeit the Mitochondrial genes being treated.
http://www.dhgp.de/i...faqtext3_1.htmlWe have a topic thread on this general subject that can be found here:
http://www.imminst.o...f=44&t=3187&hl=Second, there is no need to take umbrage at my suggestion that the extreme case you describe is *wrong* because in general I agree with you but I was offering a counter example that suggests *none* is too broad a term to use, when "all too little" would be something I agree with.
The mitofection research is a *type* of reversal procedure and is directed at cellular senescence. To what degree of complexity it has been developed is a separate question but its long term goals are for human application, not merely in a mouse.
It is a form of genetic therapy though it is manipulating the far simpler genome of mitochondria rather than the hosts' directly, however the practical result would be a general rejuvenation of tissues if it works.
When I last talked with Rafal it was certainly the case that his work had *begun* on cell cultures, but it was also clear from our discussions that there was no intent to sustain that limitation. What was clear was the desire for secrecy over their procedures.
I was asking Aubrey for a clarification of more recent work because I hoped they are in communication. Rafal is also a member here at Imminist but does not check in often. I would hope he might contribute directly on this matter if he does.
As to the more general issue of credibility or the perception of the need for secrecy there are many possible motives; profit looming large for some and issues of peer respect and continued tenure and funding being on the others.
The potential value of patents over such work simply dwarf the importance of the remuneration of the MMP with respect to the actual cash value and the proprietary desire to protect such rewards against possible industrial theft are only logical in todays' environment.
I consider the intent of the prize to be important but as we can see from the efforts of Rutan on the X-Prize comparison the actual cost for accomplishing even one mission was more than double any possible recompense the prize offers. His goals for this endeavor are a summation of his life's work and he had substantial financial backing but even they operated under a significant cloak of secrecy before announcing they were preparing for launch.
The probable financial rewards for *any* proven Reversal Procedure can be measured in billions, if not tens of billions of dollars. The MMPrize brings notoriety and some peer fame but if it compromised such an opportunity would it be worth it to the individuals and institutions involved to announce their approach and findings too soon, thus tipping their hand to others to copycat and perhaps leap frog ahead with alternative competing patents?
Look at the race for the Human Genome map that is still being debated. I did not *accuse* you of anything.
To be clear I said:
I would say this is wrong but there are a few aspects that get in the way of an accurate assessment.
This is not only simple opinion and suggestion at worst, it is saying there are good reasons to recognize and discuss the confusing aspects of the claim; which we are doing.
As for the problem of credibility, this is an area of research that is dangerously close to the third rail in terms of peer review. That rail being the line between what is recognized as genius and that of quackery. It is awfully difficult to reclaim a lost reputation and the field of medical research is filled with road kill on the path to progress. You have only to look at AIDS and Cancer research to observe many examples.
This area of research is too nascent to have developed much parochialism of approach yet but it is also a situation where many look upon these unchartered waters and are afraid to be the first to set a course. Most of the work that is popularized has a *snake oil taint* since it is from the cosmetics industry, supplements, and pseudoscience.
Plastic surgeons are only giving an *appearance* of rejuvenation and the professionals make no claim to be reversing the underlying processes of aging. Nutritionists make bold claims but have little in terms of long term and corroborated double bind study to validate them. Even if they are effectively *slowing* aging they certainly should be wary of marketing of their products as *Fountains of Youth*, however they do and any association with this perception might make a serious scientist cautious of being perceived to be doing the same.
None of this even reflects the problems of securing research funding sources and governmental oversight when the Administration controlling the purse strings at the moment here in the US is somewhat atavistic.
Let me ask you some different questions:
How would you validate a
Reversal Procedure?
This is not just an idle question of general health but requires some pretty broad markers, which is why I said above that aging is not really a steady state phenomena. We can tell it is happening by overt signs but the day to day measure is much more difficult to quantify.
In others words if you reversed the aging process a day how would you know?
A week?
A month starts looking more possible in a mouse but it is still full of speculative markers.
A year might be pretty evident if it wiped out the overt signs of graying fur, hormonal markers and allowed a measure, say like sperm count, neural activity, or neuron regeneration to be measurable.
Certainly a reversal to before puberty would be obvious but do you see the problem with the approach?
How long would it take to be a perceptible result?
And
Is this a
period of reversed aging such as
negative senescence that is only detectable over the duration?
Does the process level off and simply become indistinguishable from a Prevention Procedure?
Are you looking for a shock effect (sudden reversal) or is the rate of reversal a critical factor?
Suppose the question of the rate is one that involves a higher mortality risk and going slower is safer but going fast enough to be obvious and overtly measurable kills the subject?
Suppose a mouse in its *middle age* period were treated and each day forward resulted in two days of reversal, how long would it take to realize the effect was a reversal and not simply a cessation of aging; a year, two?
Prometheus I am not against this idea and that is why I voted for it but I also see some glaring problems with finding an accurate set of parameters for actually awarding the prize. Could you suggest some verifiable criteria please?
