The British scientist stands his ground

Artem Luchko, "Afisha" 

In Moscow, within the framework of the Open Innovations Forum, Aubrey de Grey, a gerontologist, convinced that old age can be defeated, it remains only to raise $ 50 million and endure 25 years. Di Gray told Afisha about Russian oligarchs, a cure for cancer and uploading consciousness into a computer.

Aubrey de Grey, who is referred to in the media as nothing less than a seller of immortality, is perhaps the most famous gerontologist in the world. After graduating from Cambridge University with a degree in computer science, he started developing artificial intelligence, but by the early 2000s, de Grey had changed his research interests and began creating the so-called SENS –Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, a strategy for achieving negligible aging by engineering methods. Having gained fame thanks to statements about the possible prolongation of human life up to 1000 years, as well as a beard, open polygamy and a love of beer, di Gray became a participant in TED and dozens of other major conferences dedicated to futurology. Now he is focused on his work as chairman and Director of Science of the SENS Foundation, whose goal, if not to abolish death and old age, then at least to postpone them for hundreds of years.

– In your speeches and interviews, you say a rather obvious thing that aging is the most important problem of humanity. But many people, according to your own words, do not believe in it. Why?

– People think that aging is something that stands apart from senile diseases. Of course, no one wants to get cancer, Alzheimer's syndrome and so on, but everyone treats aging with humility. From the point of view of biology, it is a mistake to separate these things. It just so happened that we gave the names of diseases to certain processes associated with aging. But why is such an obvious idea misunderstood? In part, this way of thinking has developed historically. Over hundreds of years of observations, people have seen that some get cancer and others don't; some have heart problems, others don't. Such a view gives a false understanding that these diseases are something like infections that can be picked up, or you can not pick up. But everyone ages, and at about the same age, it just manifests itself in different ways. The rejection of this elementary idea can be explained from the point of view of the psychology of emotions. When something seems inevitable, like the fact that we will all die of old age after some time, new ways to cope with this thought appear. The search for the positive aspects of old age begins. Although, of course, this is absolutely ridiculous. Most people are stupid and cowardly to accept this thought.

– You say that old age comes for everyone at about the same age. I wonder which one?

– Some people live up to 70 years, others up to 110 years – it's not such a big difference. Let's look at an infectious disease, for example tuberculosis: some people get it as children, while others do not get it at all. The difference with the diseases of old age is that they often manifest themselves at a late age and hide behind each other. If you died of cancer, no one will know if you could have had a heart attack. Therefore, it seems to us that we are dying because of individual things. But this is not the case.

– OK, let's talk about SENS. What is it first of all – a research laboratory, a foundation or a conceptual program?

– The SENS Research Foundation is a charitable biomedical company based in California, with its laboratory, where research is carried out on two major projects. And we are also a fund with a budget of $5 million, which is very, very small. In fact, we need about $50 million, but we are already doing a lot with what we have. We are developing the concept of SENS – a program for repairing damage to body tissues. Most gerontologists aim to delay the moment of aging and prolong a healthy life. That is, they are thinking about slowing down the process of accumulation of these damages. It's all great. But our approach to the problem is different. We propose to restore cells. What are the damages? A big breakthrough 15 years ago allowed us to classify 7 categories for them, for each of which there is a certain type of therapy. For example, one of the obvious types of damage is cell death, and here the use of stem cells comes to our aid.

7 types of cell damage, according to the SENS concept

What are the main difficulties preventing you from starting to apply it now?

– A whole rejuvenation industry is needed. There is still a lot of work to be done to create it, and we are at a very early stage. The private sector is not interested in it yet, since for many these prospects are too long-term. But by advancing in research, we are making our organization more interesting to the public. A good example is a project dedicated to atherosclerosis, which grew out of our organization. Now it is funded not by our foundation, but by a private company. We hope that in the next couple of years most of the projects will go this way and from the field of philanthropy it will all move into the field of real business.

– It seemed to me that there should be a huge queue of rich people who are ready to do anything for the sake of prolonging youth.

– I would like it to be so. But this is not the case. We often communicate with wealthy people, but it is very difficult to convince them to sign a check. Those who want to earn money do not know when they will start making a profit. It's easier to persuade to invest in something that will bring $1 million in a year than in something that may bring $1 billion in 20 years. Other people who are interested in SENS for philanthropic reasons doubt the reputation of our research, how correct they are. Many billionaires just laugh at them.

– Have you met with billionaires from Russia?

– Oh, yes, just yesterday I met with a couple of very wealthy people.

– Does something special distinguish them from the rest?

– Most of those I've talked to are more interested in investing than in philanthropy. Some are better acquainted with our developments, others are less – all these are just questions of education. But I like Russia because people here don't need to prove that aging is bad. Most people understand this right away. There is no need to explain how we will cope with overpopulation and what will happen if dictators live forever. I have spent my whole life in the West answering these questions. It's very tiring. Yesterday I opened my speech on the forum with the words: "You guys have the most advanced views on the fight against aging, and you could become world leaders if you put them into practice. So come on!"

– Maybe in Russia people don't think about overpopulation because of the huge uninhabited territories. 

– Yes, but what about long-lived dictators? (Laughs.)

– And yet - what do you usually answer to these questions? 

– When I am asked questions about overpopulation, I usually tell them that in fact the population is growing slower than it seems, and in general it will not grow so rapidly if life expectancy increases. I talk about how new technologies – solar panels, cold fusion, meat from test tubes, and so on – increase the potential capacity of the planet's ecological system. And technology is developing faster and faster. 

And yet, if we suddenly learn how to cure old age, the problem of overpopulation will be inevitable. We will have to have fewer children than we would like. But is it so terrible? Yes, and many people who want many children will suffer. But is it really worse than 100 thousand painful deaths from old age every day? And most of the people die after long-term illnesses. In addition, we always have a choice – we can say: "Oh my God, overpopulation! Let's not go down this path." We recognize this concept as unfit and will return to how people are dying now. But another option is also possible, when people in the future will say: "It would be great not to get old, but we don't have any damn therapy, because our ancestors didn't even bother to start research in this area." It will be very embarrassing.

– You say that such therapy can become a reality in 20-25 years. 

– I say that now there is a 50/50 chance to come to it in 20-25 years, but only if we get funding. With the current amount of money, we will need at least another 10 years. And that's another half a billion painful deaths. 

– And what will this therapy be like? Will the patient need to visit a special clinic once every 10 years and undergo a course of some procedures?

– Something like that. First, we plan to perform surgical operations, replace the entire organs. But, as with any other medical therapy, it will improve, become more effective and cheaper. Subsequently, we will come to a series of injections, after which it will be necessary to remain under observation for a month or a week. Then simple pills may appear.

– Will stem cells be the main drug?

– In many ways, the treatment is based on injections of stem cells. Also, the therapy will include artificially created viruses that will be introduced into cells, into the genome and will allow us to do things that we were not able to do before. 

– It turns out that you are going to change a person at the genome level, in other words, to make a new biological species out of us? 

– There is a difference between treatment and improvement. For me, all that keeps people young is therapy, treatment. My idea is to give people something they've never had. Of course, such technologies require serious regulation, and many issues need to be discussed. But even if some improvements can create problems for us and they should be banned (if everyone agrees with this), this does not mean that we should prohibit their development and research. 

– But all these improvements will be very, very expensive, right?

"Not really. Today, all high-tech medical care is very expensive and available only to the wealthiest. This is a fact. But all these therapies don't work. The current treatment is that it slightly delays the onset of old age. It turns out that the money that is spent on maintaining vital activity is simply flying down the drain. If we had a therapy that really works, the economy would completely change. Firstly, money would not be spent on empty treatment, and secondly, a healthy society would bring more material benefits to the states.

– I wanted to ask you about cancer. There is such an expression: "The one who didn't die of cancer, just didn't live to see it." How fair is it? 

– It is, but the same is true for other diseases – atherosclerosis, Alzheimer's and so on. 

– You are developing a cancer treatment, aren't you? Tell us, what is OncoSENS?

– Cancer is one of the aspects of aging. A very important aspect. And it is the most difficult to fight with it, since it evolves by itself. Cancer is trillions of very inventive cells that are trying to survive at any cost. For the last 40 years, everyone has been too optimistic about this disease. We tried too simple methods, and all attempts failed. Now we are investigating the role of telomeres – the end sections of chromosomes. These areas are shortened at the moment of cell division, and in this process the cells of the body survive only thanks to telomerization, which compensates for their missing areas. If we don't want the cells to divide, we need to stop the telomerization process: in this case, when the cancer cells continue to divide, they will simply destroy themselves. It is possible to completely stop telomerization, but then all healthy cells – blood cells, epidermis cells, and so on – will not be able to divide, and the body will die in 10-15 years. We can fix this by introducing new stem cells into the body. However, it is very difficult, and I hope that we will find some easier way. Immune therapy has been updated today. Her idea itself appeared more than 20 years ago, but over the past couple of years, these studies have seriously succeeded. There are also completely crazy ideas related to the study of a naked digger – this is a long-lived rodent that does not have cancer. Maybe he'll teach us something.

– Wouldn't it be easier in the future to get rid of the body altogether by uploading consciousness to a computer? 

– Yes, indeed, such developments are underway, and there have been various attempts, but it is still unclear how this can be implemented and whether the personality will continue to exist after downloading – or whether it will already be another personality. It's all incredibly complicated. If we can learn to restore cells in 20-25 years, then it should take at least 50 years to get closer to uploading consciousness to a computer. Although I may be wrong – and if after some time we fail, and the scientists with the download seriously succeed, I will be very happy. 

– So you support the idea itself?

- of course. But it will take a long time to get used to the fact that you are no longer made of meat. 

– How can it look like? Something like a global Facebook, where everyone is always talking and having fun? Or will they be avatars?

– We can also imagine physical versions, for example, a biological body with a silicon brain. We can act incrementally, transplanting neurons separately for decades. Or, of course, we can grow bodies without a brain and build our brains into them as the old body wears out. This way we can live the same way as now. 

– But how will all life on Earth change if everyone lives for more than 1000 years? In my view, people will have nowhere to hurry, nothing to strive for? 

– This is all nonsense. Remember when you had your first sex, and ask yourself what you were thinking about at the moment when you wanted to bring it closer. Would you talk about the fact that you still have 60 years ahead of you? No, you thought: "Oh my God, I want to get her into bed right now." When a person wants something, he wants it as soon as possible. 

– Do religious people criticize you for your activities? 

– Not really. They believe in what is written in the Bible, and it says that we must minimize suffering. Aging is the main cause of suffering, and it is obviously a sin not to fight it. 

– Does the scientific community criticize your work? 

– The entire scientific community is working on the problems of aging in the same way that seismologists study earthquakes. That is, they consider the phenomenon itself, and not how to deal with it. When I came up with my SENS idea, most of my colleagues didn't understand it. I have stepped into areas that were not previously associated with the biology of aging. My colleagues did not know about them and did not want to go there, so they did not read my articles, did not follow the experimental work. Over time, I became aggressive. 10 years ago, there were public battles (written, of course) with those who believed that my writings were unscientific. Now the dust has settled, there has been a serious shift in these disputes. Now our ideas and publications are supported by the largest scientific luminaries. Just last week, our first article was published in the journal Science. In the last few years, people have come to believe in our ideas so much that some have begun to pass them off as their own.

Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru

10.11.2015