Talk:Aubrey de Grey

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

Contents

[edit] Irony

Anonymous user 210.187.136.223, congratulations, your editing tests have worked. Continue such tests, and, under the discretion of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, your domain may be blocked. --Nectarflowed 23:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--I changed the 7 symptoms into a numbered list... Looks clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.35.31 (talk • contribs)

[edit] seven causes

Yeah, that looks better. However, the causes themselves are copied verbatim from the source. I can't tell if they are an excerpt from a paper of some sort by De Grey, as they are in a box next to the interview. Perhaps a rewording of each to avoid copyright infringement?

Could you please state the source for these "7 causes" in the article more clearly? It's not apparent from the article whether this is scientific consensus or a theory by de Grey.--Biologos 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I have added "according to Aubrey de Grey" to the subheading, that should do the trick.--Biologos 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


These are not causes but categories of aging damage. De Grey believes that fixing all seven types of damage equals rejuvenation. It's not his list! The 7 types of damage are well known since over 20 years http://www.sens.org/just7.htm. What's important and specific to De Grey is that he states that all these are fixable. And by fixing all of them, not just a few we will be able to live in a near perfect condition (typical to a 20-25year old healthy human body ) as long as we wish, like vintage cars and machines. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph. Also check Senescence#Reliability_theory Leba123 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It is de Grey's list. The link http://www.sens.org/just7.htm is his webpage. Those types of damage have all been known for decades, sure, but it his idea, that by fixing these and only these 7, "we will be able to live in a near perfect condition". I have changed the subheading to "The seven types of aging damage, as proposed by de Grey". --Biologos 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
The idea is, fixing those seven shall add 30 years to lifespan, and that those 30 years are enough time to improve the therapies, ad infinitum. 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] picture source

three's a free picture source for him at [1], why was the original removed? --Procrastinating@talk2me 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to document when the picture was removed, but this link [2] may indicate the reason if no one vouched for the file. I will see if I can handle it. --GirlForLife 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I have uploaded the file. The deletion log is here [3] and I am hoping that "fair use" is the right category [4] --GirlForLife 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of Aubrey de Grey's status at Cambridge

In the interests of accuracy I thought it would be useful to clarify that De Grey is neither a member of faculty at Cambridge University nor, as far as I can dtermine, any other university. I edited this article to this effect, including his current occupation and that his work in gerontology is on a part-time basis. It appears that these facts have been edited out from the article and I was wondering why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.242.219 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I have been in personal e-mail communication with Aubrey de Grey concerning the accuracy of the information about him in this article, and this has been the basis of the corrections I have made. Aubrey no longer is associated with the Genetics Department (he was in charge of software development and not simply a technician), but he now devotes himself to biogeronotolgy on a full-time basis. The edit "information" by 130.63.242.219 was not only inaccurate and derogatory, but out-dated. --Ben Best 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You have it the wrong way about. He is no longer employed by the university, and so he IS now in full-time gerontolgoy, whereas previously his dayjob was computer work. 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits by 130.209.6.40

130.209.6.40 has deleted the information about Dr. de Grey's FlyBase responsibilities in the Genetics Department of Cambridge University for no good reason that I can see. This information clarifies much of the confusion some people have about Dr. de Grey's connection to Cambridge University. I have reverted this edit. 130.209.6.40 has also added a comment concerning Dr. de Grey being a researcher at CIRCA (Cambridge Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Aging). I have been in e-mail communication with Dr. de Grey about this and he tells me that CIRCA is an informal group at Cambridge to whom he has lectured, but he is not a researcher there or formally associated. Admittedly, the CIRCA website is misleading (Aubrey says that he will seek to have this corrected), so 130.209.6.40 cannot be blamed for making this misinterpretation. I am reverting that edit also, not with ill-will, but with a desire for accuracy. I hope that 130.209.6.40 will be understanding concerning this matter. --Ben Best 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Association with Cambridge

The reason for deleting the reference to Cambridge is that it is misleading. Were Dr. de Grey working and living in Stoke-on-Trent I very much doubt whether this information would be included. The prominent placement of Cambridge in the opening of the bio makes an association with Cambridge University, at which Dr. de Grey was a student and an employee. This work was in a non-faculty position and as a software developer the title of which seems less relevant than the fact that this was not in a research capacity relevant to gerontology. I am also having problems in identifying the nature of Dr. de Grey's PhD (or his masters, which is curisouly absent from the bio). The reference cited for this here is a web page for Cambridge University, but Trinity Hall appear to have no record of him being engaged in doctoral research there though they do say he was awarded his PhD from "Cambridge". Anyone have any information on this? The credibility of anyone's ideas rests to some extent on their qualifications and experience. Including irrelevant and potentially misleading information as to a scientist's status and past work would seem to be the kind of thing which a bio in general and a Wiki page in particular should seek to avoid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.242.219 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe the PhD was awarded for his body of work in biology; he did not write a thesis. As I understand it, Cambridge University often (or relatively often) awards these if a person has a degree of some sort from them.
Then you misunderstand it horrifically. Cambridge University most certainly does not often do this, making de Grey's case an exceptionally unusual one (I am not doubting it, just stating that it is highly unusual). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
At Cambridge (and Oxford, and the older Scottish universities) the first degree awarded is called a masters degree. However, in any case it is not unusual in England to have a PhD that one started immediately after the undergraduate degree without having done a masters year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.159.241 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rumors of having been fired from Cambridge

I have reverted an edit spreading the rumor that Dr. de Grey was fired from Cambridge and I quote Dr. de Grey's response below. --GirlForLife (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. de Grey's response to this rumor is as follows:

  • I emphatically wasn't fired, nor even pushed: I left due to pressure of my other work, and even gave four months' notice.
  • my use of the department's website for my SENS site was with the express written permission of my head of department, and Prof. Ashburner (the guy on the phone) always knew this.
  • though the work I was paid for had nothing to do with my aging work, my department always took credit for it (including my publications in its record of research), as did Prof. Ashburner (listing them in his grant applications as output of his group). They couldn't have done this if I hadn't been giving the department as my affiliation in my publications. Some people (especially Prof. Ashburner) found it easy to forget this when I started becoming controversial - but credit goes both ways.
  • Interestingly, Prof. Ashburner was also the one who suggested I apply for a Ph.D. on the basis of my early work in aging. I think it's fair to say that if my work was good enough for Cambridge to give it that degree of endorsement then it was appropriate for others to see the work as such.
  • it's certainly true that when I was unknown my affiliation was an advantage and I didn't take too much trouble to stop it from being so. But that's just riding one's luck, and I would like to know who doesn't do that.


This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_DMxxa4sM seems to suggest that this matter is not so clear-cut. It includes a short 'phone conversation with Prof. Ashburner.71.240.87.226 (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
That there video is the reason the rumour got started in the first place. 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Public appearances

I do not doubt de Grey's notability. However, listing every recorded public appearance, including their running time to the second, seems extremely strange. As it happens, I am not a supporter, but this actually seems to demean his contributions rather than help his cause. Regardless, I question the notability of the appearances rather than his work and suggest they are deleted. To take an example from his prior place of employment, it would be extremely strange if on Mike Majerus' page his every public appearance were listed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of media appearences -- lectures, etc -- is not just for the sake of a list, but a way of pointing to full versions of said lectures, etc. I agree though that the Saturday Morning TV interviews may be chucked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Independent Varification

Do we have any source about this guy other than his own words and the Methusala Foundations? This whole think has the wif of viral marketing// internet echo chamber to it. Check out some of the MF video on U tube, quite dodgy I think Steve kap (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have attended many conferences with Aubrey, including Aubrey's own conferences, and I know many of his associates. He has made so many media appearances that I am somewhat amazed that anyone would question his credibility in the way that you have done. Aubrey de Grey is one of the most well-known biogerontologists in the world, rivaled only by Leonard Hayflick and Michael West. The external links and references in this entry are to bonafide websites. --Ben Best (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think by 'credibility' you mean 'notability'. His notability is not in doubt. His credibility very much is. Oddly, no one has yet to reply to my above comment that the huge list of Youtube links et al is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Anyone want to reply to this? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I think that you are confusing your POV with fact, but that is my POV. I think at least a few Youtube links should be included and would be of interest to people wanting to learn more about the man. Often a Youtube is worth many thousands of words. --Ben Best (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
hmmm, that fact that you've gone to many conferences, and that he's had many media events, I think this argues more for "echo chamber" than "credible scientist". If he really had some great insight into aging, I think the media would come to him, you know, 'build a better mouse trap'... Steve kap (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger

I'm not convinced the Technology Review 'controversy' is notable on its own to justify its own article. Would it not be more sensible to merge it with this one under a heading of criticisms (a section that should exist on this page regardless). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way, but I did add a small controversies section which mentions the controversy and links to it for more detail. If it is indeed merged in the future, it could be placed in this section. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm totally in favor of the merger. See also the opinions of others on the discussion page of the 'controversy' article.--Biologos (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)