Last week, I was pointed in the direction of the phony “guru,” Robert Kiyosaki, author of Rich Dad, Poor Dad . It got me thinking about how such people play on people’s fantasies and exploit the need to believe in something to further their own agenda.
It also reminded me of another eminent charlatan, Aubrey de Grey, a maverick pseudo-scientist who claims that one day, human beings will be able to live forever. It seems to me that both Kiyosaki and de Grey play on Robert Greene’s 27th Law of Power:
“Law 27 – Play on people’s need to believe to create a cult-like following.
People have an overwhelming desire to believe in something. Become the focal point of such desire by offering them a cause, a new faith to follow. Keep your words vague but full of promise; emphasize enthusiasm over rationality and clear thinking.
Give your new disciples rituals to perform, ask them to make sacrifices on your behalf. In the absence of organized religion and grand causes, your new belief system will bring you untold power.”
Today, I read yet another news article featuring the supposed scientist Dr. Aubrey de Grey, as he was featured on the Stephen Colbert report, joking about how to make John McCain younger. 
Undoubtedly, whilst this is clearly important research, I’m irritated by the fact that nobody in America seems to know that Dr Aubrey de Gray isn’t a real scientist. He was even featured at TED 2006 as a British researcher on aging.
His Methusalah foundation is an American organisation. Why is that, do you think? Do you think the British wouldn’t want to sponsor a so-called eminent scientist like de Gray? No, it’s because we know the truth about de Gray.
I strongly believe that it’s dangerous to spread these kinds of ideas, because there is no scientific substance there at all. There is some kind misconception that he has some scientific credentials, which gives de Grey a platform to spread his ideas.
This week, we’ve seen protesters march against scientology all around the world; in fact de Grey’s Methuselah religion has just about the same level of scientific merit.
Let’s examine the evidence.
Wait, isn’t he a PhD? From Cambridge University?
PhD, yes, but in computer science, not in biochemistry, or any of the life sciences. In fact, in a documentary called “Do you want to live forever?” broadcast on Channel 4 last year, it seems de Grey was just a computer technician working in one of the Cambridge labs. It seems he was passing himself off as a scientist to anyone who wanted to listen.
Is there any scientific merit behind de Grey’s theories?
In basic terms, de Grey proposes that there are seven signs of aging and “cures.”
Some of these include:
1. Cell depletion
2. Unwanted cells
3. Chromosome mutations
4. Mitochondria mutations
5. Accumulation of ‘junk’ within the cell
He also offers “cures.” However, these signs of aging are not new information, but have been long established by scientists. In addition, de Grey’s so-called cures are pure speculation on his part; rather than consisting of any scientific substance, they are merely bogus claims about what the future of science “might” hold.
Science is so far away from finding a cure from aging, Aubrey de Grey (I will not call him doctor) never has to prove any of his claims, because it just won’t be possible in his lifetime.
Now for the philosophical part – why would Aubrey de Grey want to live forever?
The Channel 4 documentary last year speculated on why Aubrey de Grey would spin such an elaborate web of lies. Of course, it’s pure theory, but from a philosophical perspective, it’s certainly interesting.
Many of us believe in some sort of life after death, whether we mean in the metaphysical sense or through creating a legacy. Those with religious faith believe that life after death is the key to eternal life. Many also believe in the concept of legacy, leaving loved ones or children to continue our genetic footprint long after we die.
However, Aubrey de Grey neither believes in the concept of life after death, nor does he have any children to continue his legacy. According to the documentary by Christopher Sykes, de Grey clings to the idea of living forever to fulfill some kind of void in his own life.
Do you want to live forever?
Regardless of whether you believe the documentary’s reasoning for why de Grey wants to live forever, our society is increasingly obsessed with prolonging youth and freezing the aging process. De Grey has successfully exploited this to gain world-wide notoriety.
If you want to find out more, watch the Christopher Sykes documentary.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: aging, de grey, documentary, forever, life, Science, sykes
Why this tabloid journalist style? Dr De Grey (he has a PhD so it’s quite in order to use Dr.) obviously has an enquiring mind. The fact he has no formal qualification in a subject means he can ponder questions that the orthodoxy either haven’t consideed or have dismissed in the light of conventional wisdom. It should always be borne in mind that education, by definition, is simply the repetition of conventional wisdom. In addition, he can obviosuly read.
Status is an obvious part of this piece. He is ‘just’ a computer technician. Well, that means he’s a problem solver – not an endearing quality in academia. I can well remember during the BSE crisis of the early 1980s a professor from Leeds microbiology department issuing all sorts of dire warnings concerning BSE in human populations. If this person had read Stanley Pruisner’s work on prions he may been less apoclyptic.
Of Dr De Grey’s seven points related to ageing, 5 concern oxidation – or rather anti-oxidants. Anti-oxidants are well accepted as being ‘anti-ageing’ although not the ones sold as pills in pharnacies. Some of which appear as advertisements on your blog.
Dr De Grey’s musings (and that’s all they are at the moment) are a contribuition to research philosophy. That it should be goal directed and not curiosity directed. That seems the wrong philosophy to me but not one that deserves contempt.
eddie reader
http://www.good2use.com
Hi Eddie, thanks for commenting. I’ll just go through each of your points.
1. “Why this tabloid journalist style?”
It’s not tabloid.
2. “Dr De Grey (he has a PhD so it’s quite in order to use Dr.) obviously has an enquiring mind.”
The “Dr” was in reference to the fact that De Grey uses the title to pass himself of a biologist or biochemist; he may have a PhD, but that does not make him an expert in life sciences. As for “enquiring mind,” so what? Having an enquiring mind here is irrelevant, because we are talking about his credibility as a scientist. I have an enquiring mind; so what?
3. The fact he has no formal qualification in a subject means he can ponder questions that the orthodoxy either haven’t consideed or have dismissed in the light of conventional wisdom.
The so-called “orthodoxy” have studied the scientific method. Here is the definition of science:
“The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
There we go. Observation, and experimental investigation are key. Just saying that we live forever isn’t really enough.
4. “ It should always be borne in mind that education, by definition, is simply the repetition of conventional wisdom. In addition, he can obviosuly read.”
At what level? Of course, education at high school level is probably going to be repetition. However, when you’re a pioneering research scientist, it can’t be repetition, because your pioneering work hasn’t been discovered yet. That’s why it’s research.
“He can obviously read.”
Again, so what? Has he performed any empirical experiment that would give credibility to his ideas? No.
By the way, this is the only reason that De Grey appeals. Because he isn’t part of the establishment, and so people want to believe that makes him credible. It doesn’t.
De Grey is not Einstein. Unlike Einstein, De Grey has not provided any work according to the scientific method.
5. “Status is an obvious part of this piece. He is ‘just’ a computer technician.”
It’s not obvious.
“Just” refers to the fact that De Grey mislead people into thinking that he was a professor of biochemistry at the University of Cambridge when he was “just” a computer technician. Just says nothing about the status of computer technicians. It refers to his broad deception.
It’s not about status. Nothing wrong with computer technicians, I’m sure they’re very nice people and very competent at computer-related problems.
6. “Well, that means he’s a problem solver – not an endearing quality in academia.”
What basis do you have for saying it’s not an endearing quality? This is a bit of a broad generalization, don’t you think? Academic research is nothing but problem-solving.
As for De Grey being a problem solver. He may well be a problem-solver. Still doesn’t make him a scientist.
7. “I can well remember during the BSE crisis of the early 1980s a professor from Leeds microbiology department issuing all sorts of dire warnings concerning BSE in human populations. If this person had read Stanley Pruisner’s work on prions he may been less apoclyptic.”
I was only just born in the early 80s, but either way, this is largely irrelevant. One scientist in one lab in the middle of Leeds in the 1980s says nothing about De Grey or academia or the scientific community as a whole.
8. “Of Dr De Grey’s seven points related to ageing, 5 concern oxidation – or rather anti-oxidants. Anti-oxidants are well accepted as being ‘anti-ageing’ although not the ones sold as pills in pharnacies.”
I only have a BSc. in medicinal chemistry, and even I learnt about the signs of aging (and not from De Grey’s research…) So what?
As for anti-oxidants, yes, you are right, but everyone knows about anti-oxidants, so this is not new information. De Grey did not pioneer the research that says anti-oxidants are anti-aging.
It’s common knowledge that oxygen free radicals cause cellular damage and speed up the aging process.
Excuse me while I go eat some red grapes. Red grapes contain anti-oxidants! Wow, I am a genius! Oh wait, no. I’m not.
9. Some of which appear as advertisements on your blog.”
I don’t do this to make money. I do it because I love writing. I don’t have advertisements on my blog (??)
10. “Dr De Grey’s musings (and that’s all they are at the moment) are a contribuition to research philosophy. That it should be goal directed and not curiosity directed. That seems the wrong philosophy to me but not one that deserves contempt.”
Ok philosophy. Not science. It deserves contempt because it is pseudo-science attempting to be credible science.
Philosophy is “I think this.”
Science is “I must provide evidence for this.”
Well science recomends to avoid the atack to the person, so i will not say nothing about the person of Mr. De Grey. He maybe or maybe not a charlatan time will tell.
Other motivated people have done remarkable things without being even phds in the specific areas. The fathers of Lorenzo Odone have accomplished a respectful scientific discover about the disease of their son.
We must questions his ideas. I particularly do not see any evidence of his claims, but if there is a possibility, well lets investigate. And there are people investigating. Immortality or very long life span worth the trouble thats for certain.
Get your facts straight if you are going to attack someone. Let me help:
De Grey’s PhD was given by Cambridge and NOT for computer science. He was awarded a PhD under the university’s ’special regulations’ exception for a Cambridge alumnus who publishes a significant scientific work that advances scholarship, even if not formally enrolled in the PhD program.
De Grey submitted his book ‘The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging’ to the committee. He then presented an oral thesis defense in front of a committee of faculty PhD biologists After this he was awarded the PhD.
Prior to this, De Grey was a computer technician in bioinformatics for the Dept of Genetics at Cambridge.
Now, the way to properly attack De Grey’s credentials is this:
In his book that was submitted for his PhD he does NO original research and in fact never stepped foot in a lab at all. The book is a comprehensive (and impressive) literature review of hundreds of publications about the biology of aging. De Grey synthesizes all of the current research into one place and then lays out a plan of action for possible inroads to delaying and then reversing aging.
His plan is scientifically plausible, if not close to being scientifically possible at this point in time.
My problem with him is that he seems to be good at collecting research, summarizing it, separating the good from bad, important from unimportant. BUT he does no original science or lab work of his own. No experiments, no published papers that contain HIS lab work. He doesn’t have a lab, he’s not tenured faculty at Cambridge. He is a speaker, and cheerleader for the anti-aging cause. He gives scientists ideas of what avenues to pursue, while he undertakes none himself because he has NO training in laboratory biology techniques.
Now THAT is how to criticize him. Get it right.
In addition people should understand that he was literally fired from his job as technician, this is clearly revealed toward the end of the documentary. It was also revealed that he was fired for misuse of equipment – his Methuselah website was in fact hosted on equipment set aside for other real biology researchers.
He never disclosed to others the he met in US academia, that he was a computer technician and was doing amateur (unfunded) research in his spare time.
He is a self publicist, period.
I think you forgot to mention that he enjoys drinking beer entirely too much? I mean come on… this might just be the most sensible thing a human being has attempted since the advent of Aristotelian Logic. If you are so certain that De Grey is a fraud, then why not earn some money by proving it?
The SENS Challenge Prize
In July 2005, Pontin announced a $20,000 prize open to any molecular biologist, with a record of publication in biogerontology, who could prove that SENS was “so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate.” (See Pontin’s TR Blog “The SENS Challenge” [6]). Technology Review pledged $10,000 towards the prize, and the Methuselah Foundation, an organization co-founded by de Grey, pledged the other $10,000.
In March, of 2006, Technology Review announced that it had chosen a panel of judges for the Challenge: Rodney Brooks, PhD, director of MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL); 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; and J. Craig Venter, PhD, founder of the J. Craig Venter Institute and developer of whole-genome shotgun sequencing, which sped up the human genome project.[7]
Technology Review received five submissions to its Challenge. Three met the terms of the prize competition. They were published by Technology Review on June 9, 2006. Accompanying the three submissions were rebuttals by de Grey, and counter-responses to de Grey’s rebuttals.
On July 11, 2006, Technology Review published the results of the SENS Challenge. In the end, no one won the $20,000 prize. The judges felt that no submission met the criterion of the challenge and disproved SENS, although they unanimously agreed that one submission, by Preston Estep and his colleagues, was the most eloquent. Craig Venter succinctly expressed the prevailing opinion: “Estep et al. … have not demonstrated that SENS is unworthy of discussion, but the proponents of SENS have not made a compelling case for it.”
Summarizing the judges’ deliberations, Pontin wrote, “SENS is highly speculative. Many of its proposals have not been reproduced, nor could they be reproduced with today’s scientific knowledge and technology. Echoing Myhrvold, we might charitably say that de Grey’s proposals exist in a kind of antechamber of science, where they wait (possibly in vain) for independent verification. SENS does not compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists; but neither is it demonstrably wrong.”[8] However, Myhrvold himself was later quoted in the Washington Post (November 1, 2007, page C10) as follows: “It was a bit ironic because they were mostly the work of established scientists in mainstream gerontology who sought to brand de Grey as ‘unscientific’ — yet the supposed refutations were themselves quite unscientific. “The ‘refutations’ were either ad hominem attacks on de Grey, or arguments that his ideas would never work (which might be right, but that is what experiments are for), or arguments that portions of de Grey’s work rested on other people’s ideas. None of these refute the possibility that he is at least partially correct.”
Taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Grey_Technology_Review_debate
To the point made by @jonathan: so what? Cambridge was obviously satisfied enough to give the PhD. That’s not good enough?
As to the documentary’s thesis that de Gray is doing all this work to “fill a void in his life” – again, so what? This is like criticizing Godel because he went crazy and stopped eating because he though he was being poisoned.
What difference does any of this make? The guy is trying to end aging. He’s mobilizing resources in that direction and making things happen.
The next time you go to a rest home or a hospital and see all the human suffering maybe you better think about the good he’s trying to do and decide whose side you’re on.
There is already a cure for death, there is a plant in amazon that combined with some substances can stop aging. But of course its not avaliable to everybody and shouldnt be.
This is grossly innacurate on many counts.
De Grey does have a PhD in the relevant life science, does run a lab (but the lack of one would not a valid criticism of anything), and was not fired from any job, but quit after a disagreement. I know him personally and I can assure you that whatever else he may be, he is not a charlatan.
This is really conservative rhetoric at is most obsurd. Dr. de Grey is an amazing man on a passionate mission regardless of his background or education. Thos. Edison had a 5th grade education. It never slowed him down from accomplishing and researching what he did. The days of specialization are going to be grinding to a halt. Diversification will be the new specialty. Brilliant minds will be brilliant minds and passion for a cause will overcome any lack in education. Either go back to the church you worship and and talk to your favorite clergy or get your head out of your ass and develop some passion on your own and think for yourself w/o anybody else’s opinion. Long live…. everybody!!