Michael Rae, in "The Birth of NeoSENS" topic sums up his position:
The central feature of SENS per se as an approach to biomedical gerontology is to directly attack the accumulating damage that causes dysfunction, rather than attempting to prevent it ..
I would say Michael, that WILT, which attempts to prevent cancer and the proliferation of other unwanted cells by ablating telomerase expression is also acting as a preventative, because it prevents cells from dividing uncontrollably is it not? How about allotopic expression of mitochondrial DNA - is not the objective there to prevent DNA damage by transferring the mitochondrial genome into the less ROS rich environment of the nucleus?
There is a word, Michael, that describes what you committed in the above statement - hypocrisy . The dictionary defines a hypocrite as one who is a false pretender to virtue or piety . It makes one wonder how pervasive this type of thinking and reasoning is.
I have never been interested in deconstructing SENS and revealing its flaws. But the sheer arrogance, disdain and contempt to even consider the merit of proposed more direct and productive methods of achieving negligible senescence compel me to do so. What are the motives, I wonder, of such behavior other than to obfuscate? What purpose does it serve other than to illustrate that the edifice of SENS must indeed be crumbling?
Other SENS supporters have defended its inflexibility on the basis that debates on implementation are not needed, since the prime imperative is to mobilize the support of the public. Let's hear it then - is SENS a marketing ploy or a real project to address senescence? Because if is a real scientific effort then it must welcome scientific scrutiny and have a mechanism of cutting non-viable hypothesis and attaching new innovations as they come forth. There is no such mechanism or any interest to create such a mechanism.
