From: Joao Magalhaes (joao.magalhaes@fundp.ac.be)
Date: Sun Mar 02 2003 - 10:53:49 MST
Hi!
At 07:57 02-03-2003 -0800, Robert wrote:
>Agreed! I would only make a slight modification that one of the
>major reasons for the lack of funding is that most people think
>the problems cannot be solved -- we didn't go to the moon until
>we went to the moon. In many respects what is lacking is someone
>saying "let us go to the moon". Aging may be somewhat more complex
>than going to the moon but it isn't *that* much more complex.
I would argue that solving aging is much more difficult than going to the
moon mostly because we still lack the tools to change an adult human into a
non-aging human even when we do know what causes aging--stem cells appear
promising but there's still much work to be done. Even so, I agree with you
that anti-aging science needs a major finding. I'm sure that if anti-aging
research was to make a major breakthrough, such as significantly delaying
aging in mice by some easy intervention, funding and interest would boom.
As I write in my website, gerontology needs its Sputnik.
BTW, Robert, are you going to Cambridge for the IABG conference in September?
All the best.
PS: I seem to be missing some posts. Does anyone else have this problem?
Joao Magalhaes (joao.magalhaes@fundp.ac.be)
Website on Aging: http://www.senescence.info
Reason's Triumph: http://www.jpreason.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Mar 02 2003 - 10:58:22 MST