9 replies to this topic

[Aegist]

Necessarily most of the companies listed here are biomedical research which focus on a technology they have developed, or focus on research based around a technique or product they sell etc so that they can actually make a profit. It is standard business to focus on an area you think you can make progress in to the extent where you can sell a drug or treatment, or to base all of your research around a technique which you can claim to be better at than anyone else and which will result in more chance of sucessful drug creation etc so investors have confidence in your business and grants will be paid to you.

Are there any companies though, that have outright indicated that their end goal is the same as that generally accepted by the ImmInst community? Not that they need to know about ImmInst at all, what I mean, is to ask if there are any companies which choose to research topics based upon their ability to lead to the eventual cure? Or focus research on a concept which may be able to increease lifespan 30 years or whatever?

There are many companies which market health solutions, but health is not the same thing. There are many companies which try to cure degenerative diseases, and this is probably necessary, but are they just trying to cure the disease to make money from the popularity of curing such a disease? (not to imply that this is wrong or bad). Directing your research to cure alzheimers is a good idea, and we will probably need this sort of cure, but I suspect most ppl researching this don't do it so that we can one day all have infinite lifespans.... I know the lab I did my honours research in focussed on oxidative dmg in yeast. They were very aware of the lifespan research going on in yeast and the concept that this could one day be applied to humans etc etc...but that wasn't the drive. That was almost completely inconsequential to how the lab worked. The research on oxidative dmg and lifespan was purely out of scientific interest (once again, nothing wrong with that, infact very respectable).

Does a company exist, which in one wya or another says "We are here to find ways of making us healthier for longer than naturally possible, and we will continue to research everything which has an undeniable real chance of helping us acheive this goal."???

I ask because this is the company I do plan on making one day, and I don't know of any (although admitedly I havent really looked at all). Don't you think that a company which simply sets its goal on this sort of target would attract a lot of attention and help from communities like ImmInst, and even the very wealthy whom many of which are keen to give their money to people who might have a chance of making them live longer? In the absence of companies outright saying "Our goal is to do exactly that for you" they give their funds to organisation who research heart disease, cancer etc (once again...not that thats a bad idea....) My point I guess, is that i wonder if by simply making that the company goal, you set up the potential to get a lot of financial backing, all betting on the long odds, but nonetheless willing to take the risk, because if it pays off, they make a lot more than just financial return.....

[John Schloendorn]

Or focus research on a concept which may be able to increease lifespan 30 years or whatever?

Like you said, for-profit biotech companies have certain reasons to focus on a single product, or a single technology until they become very large. But no single technology will extend human life by as much as 30 years and they know that.

We are here to find ways of making us healthier for longer than naturally possible, and we will continue to research everything which has an undeniable real chance of helping us acheive this goal.

Nearly everyone says the first half-sentence somewhere on their web pages, but nearly no one says the second half, again for the reasons you discussed. They'd only develop their one blockbuster product in order to achieve longer and healthier lives, rather than "whatever it takes".

Don't you think that a company which simply sets its goal on this sort of target would attract a lot of attention and help from communities like ImmInst, and even the very wealthy

Definitely yes. You seem to be considering for-profit companies only, and would like to tap philantropic resources with them somehow. One could say that I am spending my time trying to help with rolling up the field from the other end. I'm working for the purely philantropic funded not-for-profit Methuselah Foundation in the hope to find and let them patent enzymes to clean up junk, which they then can actually sell. (As you may know, not-for-profit doesn't mean not making profit, it just means you have to leave it in the company rather than distributing it to the stockholders -- And being an immortalist, how big a Ferrari do you need...? On top of that a not-for-profit has some other advantages, such as a better standing for attracting philantropy and saving federal income tax.) So, all things considered, the Methuselah Foundation is what you seek.

[Aegist]

OK. I wonder if there are equally beneficial attributes that come with incorporating... You just mentioned some really good advantages to being a not-for-profit organisation, are there an advantages to being a for-profit company?
For example, more productivity due to shareholder pressure.... or more funding coming from the private sector because business orientated people want to put their money in something which will turn them a profit rather than a non-profit etc. something like that. I am just stabbing in the dark here, but...
Hmmmm... maybe the only way to do it, is to start a succesful biotech company which is as mundane and boring as the rest, only to make lots of money producing its boring and mundane cold and flu treatment or whatever, so that you can then start a non-profit organisation on the side and dump tons of cash into it? That way you get the solid financial backing that you need, and the tax free bonus and the freedom to research whatever it takes...

Nearly everyone says the first half-sentence somewhere on their web pages, but nearly no one says the second half, again for the reasons you discussed. They'd only develop their one blockbuster product in order to achieve longer and healthier lives, rather than "whatever it takes".

I know virtually everyone is looking to make people healthier for as long as possible...but are any of them explicitly saying that they are trying to make people healthy for 'longer than naturally possible'. I put longer than naturally possible in there to differentitate them...ie: are there any companies which seek to extend lifespan rather than simply make us feel healthier all the way until our standard 70-90 year old death point?

[John Schloendorn]

advantages to being a for-profit company

Hmm, interesting points there... I don't really have the experience to say anything. I would guess more or less blindly that venture capitalists might be more interested in for profits in general, but there is also the interesting possibility of building not-for-profits and selling them to another VC after they have grown in value. Not sure how big that is though, I need to learn a lot in this field.

maybe the only way to do it, is to start a succesful biotech company which is as mundane and boring as the rest

I strongly disagree. Doing something you don't want only in order to be able to afford doing what you do want is bound to leave you with twice the work and half the expertise. That is too large a sacrifice. Everyone wants working anti aging products. It can't be that hard to make money with them.

companies which seek to extend lifespan

Like I said, many companies listed here do say that, start looking at Kronos institute & company (which is also a very interesting form of organization by the way), elixir pharma, transvio, 21st cm, legendary pharma would be a few I know out of my head. others definitely want it but don't say it out loud, prominently advanced cell tech.

[Da55id]

John - Once a non-profit always a nonprofit. Can't sell it. VC's are very risk averse and look for ways to get their investments back within 3 - 5 years. That's why there is a need to go the non-profit route/donation route. Usually the original founders are removed or demoted and their original mission/intent are replaced with something that can produce immediate or nearer term profits. It is made dramatically more difficult because you can't prove life extension in any reasonable time frame for risk adjusted financial returns, and the FDA doesn't admit anti-aging as a theraputic target. You'd find it difficult to DESIGN a more hostile environment to fix this problem. That's why there is a Methuselah Foundation. That's why it's a donor supported volunteer group. no salaries - no cash flow "wall".

When there is scientific success, there will be plenty of for profits that will emerge...but only after the pioneers have hacked a path through the jungle and lit this path.

[John Schloendorn]

Ahh Dave, thanks for the infos! I would like to dampen your enthusiasm for the FDA though. The first-generation LysoSENS treatments are conceptualized to reverse medium to advanced stages of numerous killer diseases, top-ranking on every things-the-public-dislikes list (atherosclerosis, neurodegeneration, diabetes...) If we can get that to work, then clinical trials would be blessed with having to assess a strong and short-term effect on a disease biomarker (rather than the long-term and vague concept of "aging"). The FDA would love that as much as everyone else.

[Aegist]

Not sure how big that is though, I need to learn a lot in this field.

Me too. lots to learn. And even worse, little idea where to really start... so I am just floating around trying to pick up bits and peices as I go.

Great post MethuselahMouse. Interesting.. I wonder if being one of the first for-profit companies who start helping out all of the non-profit guys will earn itself some reputation points with the public and with ppl like the ImmInst community.... I mean, I think the more companies we have driving down this track the better, and the soon the better for sure. So if there are incentives to start soon, then thats got to be a good thing.

I guess I need to find out how Non-profit organisations work. Do they ahve to account for where their donation money goes? Justify it? What happens when they discover something new, or when they create a new treatment/drug/practice? Do they ...actually, i know the answer to this: They own the rights to it, and money generated from its sale etc is fed back into the company to continue funding research right? Which sounds like the best way to continue progress...

[maestro949]

John - Once a non-profit always a nonprofit. Can't sell it. VC's are very risk averse and look for ways to get their investments back within 3 - 5 years.

But it's not uncommon for a VC or angel funded startup company to function at a loss for many years knowing that the resulting technology or product line will have value to a larger organization. The goal is that the sale of the organization will exceed the amount of investment dollars put into it. This is high stakes gambling at it's finest but instead of betting where the house is stacked against, you are betting on bright minds with vision and the talent to produce something of value. From the investors' perspective, sometimes you get a return of 100 or more to 1. More often than not though you never see your money again.

Stating that the founding principals of a for profit company as simply life extension or immortality would probably be meet with skepticism at best and immediate dismissal at worst by most serious VC investors. A business plan that is riddled with the need for heavy R&D, major technological breaktrhoughs or scientific discoveries that can be perceived as futuristic will probably not get very far in the review process either.

There are many biotech companies at various stages that are very narrowly focused on very specific innovations that target a particular diseases or even more specifically reducing the cost of drug delivery, tech for hospitals, bioinformatics software, etc. Most of their objectives tend to focus on a small piece of the puzzle rather than broad altruistic goals.

I interview quite a few software engineers from the biotech field and it's always interesting to hear about the projects they are working on. Many of them are small companies centered around the visions of a few PhDs working on the next generation of medical devices which usually require front end software for control, analysis and reporting. I usually follow up by checking out the websites of the companies they previously worked for to read up on the product descriptions and I have yet to see anything that specifically is targetted at aging, gerontology or even geriatrics for that matter.

As John points out there can be overlap between research targetted at the diseases of aging that will also contribute to other fields. I'm sure that many would agree that the inverse is also true. Much of the research being done in corporate labs, start ups and universities will help blaze a trail for progress towards longevity discoveries. Where there is not direct correlation there will certainly be tools and techniques that can be borrowed. Research into pathways, protein folding, genetics, drug design, systems biology will all yield net gains as will new tools and software algorithms that are being developed for traditional health maladies. Some discoveries that fall out of existing research may also directly solve some of the major complications with aging! One could even argue that blazing these trails first and helping to do so might even be a better alternative than building a new set of scaffolding in terms of labs, engineering efforts and human capital along side a machine that is already driving towards solving issues such as cancer, heart disease, etc. I'm not willing to go that far but I have hope that there is a fair amount of truth to that assumption.

[John Schloendorn]

Some discoveries that fall out of existing research may also directly solve some of the major complications with aging!

No. A "discovery" never solves anything "directly". Making discoveries is easy, everybody is great at doing that. What is needed more than ever is dedicated people to push them into viable, profitable clinical applications.

One could even argue that blazing these trails first and helping to do so might even be a better alternative than building a new set of scaffolding in terms of labs, engineering efforts and human capital along side a machine that is already driving towards solving issues such as cancer, heart disease, etc.

There is no point in wasting your energy on doing something that everybody else is keen on doing for you. It is completely great that the mainstream keenly continues to generate knowledge and tools forever. But they can do it very well by themselves. Our help is needed in putting the existing pieces together, not in making more pieces.

[maestro949]

No. A "discovery" never solves anything "directly". Making discoveries is easy, everybody is great at doing that. What is needed more than ever is dedicated people to push them into viable, profitable clinical applications.

Other than LysoSENS aren't we still in a collective R&D effort of generating, testing and verifying hypothesis? Profitable clinical applications don't even appear to be on the near-term radar unless some major breakthrough appeared out of thin air. SENS goes a long way to identify the problem statements but a clear tangeble roadmap to resolving each issue isn't something that is obvious to me. Perhaps thats my own ignorance of the science but looking at it from an investment perspective, if an investor has $100m USD to plunk down they would want measurable and attainable goals spelled out that demonstrate that there is some chance of a return on investment rather than a charitable contribution to open ended research. Where would an investor today put such money in aging related therapies?

There is no point in wasting your energy on doing something that everybody else is keen on doing for you.

If there is a common output in terms of missing pieces and those pieces are blocking progress in our realm, then expediting the process by investing time in energy where money, infrastructure and resources already are doesn't seem like a waste to me. If biotech and pharmaceutical companies start turning out drugs with their proprietary drug discovery platforms it's likely they will also look elsewhere for profitable drugs, including age related diseases. Who wouldn't pay for a drug that severely lessened the effects of aging and added years of enjoyable life? Certainly there isn't a conspiracy to ignore this potential $billion market.

It is completely great that the mainstream keenly continues to generate knowledge and tools forever. But they can do it very well by themselves.

Apparently they can't. How long have we throwing money at fighting cancer? How many $billions have been poured into research grants, VC $ for biotech and investment dollars for the large pharmaceuticals. What do we have as a result? Little blue pills for erections and public water supplies oozing with anti-depressents.

Our help is needed in putting the existing pieces together, not in making more pieces.

That assumes all the pieces are on the table. From everything I've been reading most are still in the box and we don't even have a clear picture of the puzzle to guide us. Nor can we see the shapes of each piece and how they fit together. What we don't know about the metabolic pathways, gene expressions and what tinkering with the variables will produce far exceeds what we do know. Yes we've made great strides and things are looking up but we still have a long way to go.