Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

The SENS Challenge: The Judges

We've picked the judges for our biogerontology prize.

By Jason Pontin

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

In July 2005, Technology Review announced a prize for any molecular biologist working in the field of aging who could successfully meet the following challenge: demonstrate that SENS (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence), Aubrey de Grey's prescription for defeating aging, is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate. We pledged to pay $10,000 to the authors of a winning submission. Not to be upstaged, The Methuselah Foundation, an organization founded by de Grey and devoted to promoting anti-aging science, pledged an additional $10,000 to anyone who meets the requirements of the challenge.

We also pledged to form an independent panel to judge the submissions, and there we had some difficulty. The prize has languished, not for a shortage of submissions, but because we wanted to assemble a suitably distinguished group of judges.

Today, we're able to announce the panel:

Rodney Brooks, PhD, director of MIT's Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, and chief technical officer of iRobot Corp. IRobot is one of the most successful makers of robots in the world.

Anita Goel, MD and PhD, founder and chief executive of Nanobiosym.

Vikram Kumar, MD, cofounder and chief executive of Dimagi, and a pathologist at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston.

Nathan Myhrvold, PhD, cofounder and chief executive of Intellectual Ventures, and former chief technologist at Microsoft.

J. Craig Venter, PhD, founder of the Venter Institute. Venter developed the process called whole-genome shotgun sequencing, which sped up the human genome project.


The Terms of the SENS Challenge
1. The Challenge is open to any molecular biologist with a PhD from a recognized academic institution who is now associated with a recognized research institution and who has published on biogerontology in peer-reviewed journals. Technology Review will rule on whether a given individual can enter the Challenge.

2. The purpose of the Challenge is to establish whether SENS is worthy of serious consideration. Submissions are sought that attempt to demonstrate that it is not.

3. Submissions will be judged by a review panel, entirely independent of Technology Review and The Methuselah Foundation, composed of recognized molecular biologists, clinicians, and engineers. The members of the panel will be announced (see list above).

4. Aubrey De Grey will reply to all submissions. The submitting scientist may respond. All three documents will be considered by the panel.

5. The initial Challenge prize fund of $20,000 will be paid with $10,000 from Technology Review and $10,000 from The Methuselah Foundation.

6. Anyone who wishes to add to the Challenge prize fund may do so. They should contact Jason Pontin, editor in chief of Technology Review, at jason.pontin@technologyreview.com.

7. The form of the submission must be an abstract of no more than 750 words, although the main text, including footnotes, citations, and references, can be any length.

8. The most interesting submission, regardless of whether or not it has won, will be published in the May/June 2006 issue of Technology Review, along with de Grey's response.

Story continues below

9. All submissions should be sent to editor-in-chief Jason Pontin, at jason.pontin@technologyreview.com.

Comments

  • Put Up or ......
    Ah yes. Put your money where your mouth is!! I love it. Now lets see if anyone asks for flying pigs or if they get serious this time or .... my prediction is they won't have many challenges because the "real scientists" don't want to be embarassed.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Tim)
    03/14/2006
    Posts:1
    • About time
      de Grey is full of s##t.  He's just a excellent sophist in a field where people already have a tendency to overlook details in order to give their wishes credibility.  It's a service to the lay person to encourage scrunity of his SENS.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Craig)
      03/16/2006
      Posts:1
  • Stupid use of money
    Who's money is this (the buyers of tech review?) and why would anyone be so dumb to use it to, essentially, help kill people?  That is what it is  if you try to discourage people from saving life.  My point is it doesn't really matter whether or not Aubrey is wrong.  Why don't you spend your money, though, trying to save life as he is doing?  Don't pay for tech review otherwise they will use your money for stupid stunts like this one.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (J. Keith)
    03/15/2006
    Posts:1
    • SENS challenge
      I kind of agree with with J.Keith. I will say from the start that my feeling is that much can be done to address the physical effects of ageing. However, the fact is that nobody is going to win the the 'de Grey' prize (that's what it is) but not because there is no problem with SENS but because there is no real detail on what is needed to falsify SENS. (This is all about the promotion of 'de Grey'.) Just a lot of vague discussion about whether someone has a valid critique is not science and the way these ideas are being promoted is not scientific. Richard Holloway PhD.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Dr Veg)
      06/08/2006
      Posts:1
      • no real detail on winning?
        The detail that is needed on what it takes to falsify sens, from what I gather, and fully support, is that there is an independant panel of judges who are esteemed in what seems to me to be totally sufficient ways.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        Guest (Eric)
        06/10/2006
        Posts:1
  • It's efficient
    If there SENS is seriously flawed, then $20,000 is a trivial amount of money to find out. If the judges decide that there is no winner, then no money will be spent at all. This is an amazingly efficient use (or non-use) of money.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Dave)
    03/16/2006
    Posts:1
    • I agree


        Aubrey wins regardless, he gets his info out there, more recognition for the cause. Im with Aubrey 110%. Aging is a physical effect that can be engineered.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (RJWS)
      03/19/2006
      Posts:1
  • Aubrey de Grey
    I can't prove that what he said isn't true, but if people continued to live for over 1000 years wouldn't problems occur as a result of the areas of the body that continue to grow throughout your life for example your nose and ears. Wouldn't a thousand year old person have giant ears and a giant nose?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (James Meatyard)
    03/29/2006
    Posts:1
    • I want big ears and a nose
      Having a big nose and ears might be kind of cool.

      Seriously though, I think even with today's technology we could fix that, people have worse things fixed with plastic surgery.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Anonymous Coward)
      04/01/2006
      Posts:1
    • big nose made me laugh
      yeah..haha..i think that would be the least of anyones problems at 1000. i am sure that would be easily fixed (as can even be done today if needed) in comparison to some of the other issues arising.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (steve)
      04/09/2006
      Posts:1
    • Giant nose, etc.
      I'm sure if we were able to manipulate cells well enough to stop aging we could stop cartilage from growing. Or simply go to a plastic surgeon.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (Ian Smith)
      05/19/2006
      Posts:1
    • Big ears and nose
      As we begin to overcome the effects of aging, and develop technology that extends our useful lifespan, we will certainly encounter new and different problems.  An important point to remember is that 'anti-aging' technology isn't being developed in a vacuum.  We'll find solutions to whatever new problems arise, as they come up.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      Guest (James)
      06/11/2006
      Posts:1
  • These replies are a disgrace
    With all due respect, the use of profane language or suggested language and excessive vitriol used in this debate sicken me.  This is a scientific matter, not a bicker on a third rate chat board!  What are we, men of reason - or snivelling adolescents? 

    Even if his work is hopelessly optimistic, can you truly say that none of his work will bear no good fruit?  That some of his research may work, and while we will not have a cure for aging, we would have valuable new therapies?  Can you truly say that there is _no_ good to be gained from any of the seven ideas he has outlined?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Hugo Schmidt)
    05/21/2006
    Posts:1
  • recognition or revision, both are suitable
    He also wins regardless in that, even if he is proven wrong, and sens needs to pretty much be scrapped and redone, we will then know that, and be able to move on to a move viable course, a reworked version of sens.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Eric)
    06/10/2006
    Posts:1
  • Why is PhD required for this?
    Why is a PhD required for this?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    Guest (Wolfram)
    08/13/2006
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review July/August 2009

Current Issue

Search Me
Inside the launch of Stephen Wolfram’s new “computational knowledge engine.”
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
Advertisement

Follow us on Twitter

Twitter

Get Technology Review updates via the web, cellphone, or Instant Messager – Follow techreview on Twitter!

Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.