TEDGlobal 2005
Aubrey de Grey: A roadmap to end aging
Filmed:
Readability: 4
4,332,848 views
Cambridge researcher Aubrey de Grey argues that aging is merely a disease -- and a curable one at that. Humans age in seven basic ways, he says, all of which can be averted.
Aubrey de Grey - Crusader against aging
Aubrey de Grey, British researcher on aging, claims he has drawn a roadmap to defeat biological aging. He provocatively proposes that the first human beings who will live to 1,000 years old have already been born. Full bio
Aubrey de Grey, British researcher on aging, claims he has drawn a roadmap to defeat biological aging. He provocatively proposes that the first human beings who will live to 1,000 years old have already been born. Full bio
Double-click the English transcript below to play the video.
00:25
18 minutes is an absolutely brutal time limit,
0
0
2000
00:27
so I'm going to dive straight in, right at the point
1
2000
2000
00:29
where I get this thing to work.
2
4000
2000
00:31
Here we go. I'm going to talk about five different things.
3
6000
2000
00:33
I'm going to talk about why defeating aging is desirable.
4
8000
3000
00:36
I'm going to talk about why we have to get our shit together,
5
11000
2000
00:38
and actually talk about this a bit more than we do.
6
13000
2000
00:40
I'm going to talk about feasibility as well, of course.
7
15000
2000
00:42
I'm going to talk about why we are so fatalistic
8
17000
2000
00:44
about doing anything about aging.
9
19000
2000
00:46
And then I'm going spend perhaps the second half of the talk
10
21000
2000
00:48
talking about, you know, how we might actually be able to prove that fatalism is wrong,
11
23000
5000
00:53
namely, by actually doing something about it.
12
28000
2000
00:55
I'm going to do that in two steps.
13
30000
2000
00:57
The first one I'm going to talk about is
14
32000
2000
00:59
how to get from a relatively modest amount of life extension --
15
34000
3000
01:02
which I'm going to define as 30 years, applied to people
16
37000
3000
01:05
who are already in middle-age when you start --
17
40000
2000
01:07
to a point which can genuinely be called defeating aging.
18
42000
3000
01:10
Namely, essentially an elimination of the relationship between
19
45000
4000
01:14
how old you are and how likely you are to die in the next year --
20
49000
2000
01:16
or indeed, to get sick in the first place.
21
51000
2000
01:18
And of course, the last thing I'm going to talk about
22
53000
2000
01:20
is how to reach that intermediate step,
23
55000
2000
01:22
that point of maybe 30 years life extension.
24
57000
3000
01:25
So I'm going to start with why we should.
25
60000
3000
01:28
Now, I want to ask a question.
26
63000
2000
01:30
Hands up: anyone in the audience who is in favor of malaria?
27
65000
3000
01:33
That was easy. OK.
28
68000
1000
01:34
OK. Hands up: anyone in the audience
29
69000
2000
01:36
who's not sure whether malaria is a good thing or a bad thing?
30
71000
3000
01:39
OK. So we all think malaria is a bad thing.
31
74000
2000
01:41
That's very good news, because I thought that was what the answer would be.
32
76000
2000
01:43
Now the thing is, I would like to put it to you
33
78000
2000
01:45
that the main reason why we think that malaria is a bad thing
34
80000
3000
01:48
is because of a characteristic of malaria that it shares with aging.
35
83000
4000
01:52
And here is that characteristic.
36
87000
3000
01:55
The only real difference is that aging kills considerably more people than malaria does.
37
90000
5000
02:00
Now, I like in an audience, in Britain especially,
38
95000
2000
02:02
to talk about the comparison with foxhunting,
39
97000
2000
02:04
which is something that was banned after a long struggle,
40
99000
3000
02:07
by the government not very many months ago.
41
102000
3000
02:10
I mean, I know I'm with a sympathetic audience here,
42
105000
2000
02:12
but, as we know, a lot of people are not entirely persuaded by this logic.
43
107000
3000
02:15
And this is actually a rather good comparison, it seems to me.
44
110000
3000
02:18
You know, a lot of people said, "Well, you know,
45
113000
2000
02:20
city boys have no business telling us rural types what to do with our time.
46
115000
5000
02:25
It's a traditional part of the way of life,
47
120000
2000
02:27
and we should be allowed to carry on doing it.
48
122000
2000
02:29
It's ecologically sound; it stops the population explosion of foxes."
49
124000
3000
02:32
But ultimately, the government prevailed in the end,
50
127000
2000
02:34
because the majority of the British public,
51
129000
1000
02:35
and certainly the majority of members of Parliament,
52
130000
2000
02:37
came to the conclusion that it was really something
53
132000
2000
02:39
that should not be tolerated in a civilized society.
54
134000
2000
02:41
And I think that human aging shares
55
136000
1000
02:42
all of these characteristics in spades.
56
137000
2000
02:45
What part of this do people not understand?
57
140000
2000
02:47
It's not just about life, of course --
58
142000
2000
02:49
(Laughter) --
59
144000
1000
02:50
it's about healthy life, you know --
60
145000
3000
02:53
getting frail and miserable and dependent is no fun,
61
148000
3000
02:56
whether or not dying may be fun.
62
151000
2000
02:58
So really, this is how I would like to describe it.
63
153000
2000
03:00
It's a global trance.
64
155000
2000
03:02
These are the sorts of unbelievable excuses
65
157000
2000
03:04
that people give for aging.
66
159000
2000
03:06
And, I mean, OK, I'm not actually saying
67
161000
2000
03:08
that these excuses are completely valueless.
68
163000
2000
03:10
There are some good points to be made here,
69
165000
2000
03:12
things that we ought to be thinking about, forward planning
70
167000
3000
03:15
so that nothing goes too -- well, so that we minimize
71
170000
2000
03:17
the turbulence when we actually figure out how to fix aging.
72
172000
3000
03:20
But these are completely crazy, when you actually
73
175000
3000
03:23
remember your sense of proportion.
74
178000
2000
03:25
You know, these are arguments; these are things that
75
180000
4000
03:29
would be legitimate to be concerned about.
76
184000
2000
03:31
But the question is, are they so dangerous --
77
186000
3000
03:34
these risks of doing something about aging --
78
189000
2000
03:36
that they outweigh the downside of doing the opposite,
79
191000
4000
03:40
namely, leaving aging as it is?
80
195000
2000
03:42
Are these so bad that they outweigh
81
197000
2000
03:44
condemning 100,000 people a day to an unnecessarily early death?
82
199000
6000
03:50
You know, if you haven't got an argument that's that strong,
83
205000
2000
03:52
then just don't waste my time, is what I say.
84
207000
3000
03:55
(Laughter)
85
210000
1000
03:56
Now, there is one argument
86
211000
1000
03:57
that some people do think really is that strong, and here it is.
87
212000
2000
03:59
People worry about overpopulation; they say,
88
214000
2000
04:01
"Well, if we fix aging, no one's going to die to speak of,
89
216000
2000
04:03
or at least the death toll is going to be much lower,
90
218000
3000
04:06
only from crossing St. Giles carelessly.
91
221000
2000
04:08
And therefore, we're not going to be able to have many kids,
92
223000
2000
04:10
and kids are really important to most people."
93
225000
2000
04:12
And that's true.
94
227000
2000
04:14
And you know, a lot of people try to fudge this question,
95
229000
3000
04:17
and give answers like this.
96
232000
1000
04:18
I don't agree with those answers. I think they basically don't work.
97
233000
3000
04:21
I think it's true, that we will face a dilemma in this respect.
98
236000
3000
04:24
We will have to decide whether to have a low birth rate,
99
239000
4000
04:28
or a high death rate.
100
243000
2000
04:30
A high death rate will, of course, arise from simply rejecting these therapies,
101
245000
3000
04:33
in favor of carrying on having a lot of kids.
102
248000
4000
04:37
And, I say that that's fine --
103
252000
2000
04:39
the future of humanity is entitled to make that choice.
104
254000
3000
04:42
What's not fine is for us to make that choice on behalf of the future.
105
257000
4000
04:46
If we vacillate, hesitate,
106
261000
2000
04:48
and do not actually develop these therapies,
107
263000
3000
04:51
then we are condemning a whole cohort of people --
108
266000
4000
04:55
who would have been young enough and healthy enough
109
270000
2000
04:57
to benefit from those therapies, but will not be,
110
272000
2000
04:59
because we haven't developed them as quickly as we could --
111
274000
2000
05:01
we'll be denying those people an indefinite life span,
112
276000
2000
05:03
and I consider that that is immoral.
113
278000
2000
05:05
That's my answer to the overpopulation question.
114
280000
3000
05:08
Right. So the next thing is,
115
283000
2000
05:10
now why should we get a little bit more active on this?
116
285000
2000
05:12
And the fundamental answer is that
117
287000
2000
05:14
the pro-aging trance is not as dumb as it looks.
118
289000
3000
05:17
It's actually a sensible way of coping with the inevitability of aging.
119
292000
4000
05:21
Aging is ghastly, but it's inevitable, so, you know,
120
296000
4000
05:25
we've got to find some way to put it out of our minds,
121
300000
2000
05:27
and it's rational to do anything that we might want to do, to do that.
122
302000
4000
05:31
Like, for example, making up these ridiculous reasons
123
306000
3000
05:34
why aging is actually a good thing after all.
124
309000
2000
05:36
But of course, that only works when we have both of these components.
125
311000
4000
05:40
And as soon as the inevitability bit becomes a little bit unclear --
126
315000
3000
05:43
and we might be in range of doing something about aging --
127
318000
2000
05:45
this becomes part of the problem.
128
320000
2000
05:47
This pro-aging trance is what stops us from agitating about these things.
129
322000
4000
05:51
And that's why we have to really talk about this a lot --
130
326000
4000
05:55
evangelize, I will go so far as to say, quite a lot --
131
330000
2000
05:57
in order to get people's attention, and make people realize
132
332000
3000
06:00
that they are in a trance in this regard.
133
335000
2000
06:02
So that's all I'm going to say about that.
134
337000
2000
06:04
I'm now going to talk about feasibility.
135
339000
3000
06:07
And the fundamental reason, I think, why we feel that aging is inevitable
136
342000
4000
06:11
is summed up in a definition of aging that I'm giving here.
137
346000
3000
06:14
A very simple definition.
138
349000
1000
06:15
Aging is a side effect of being alive in the first place,
139
350000
3000
06:18
which is to say, metabolism.
140
353000
2000
06:20
This is not a completely tautological statement;
141
355000
3000
06:23
it's a reasonable statement.
142
358000
1000
06:24
Aging is basically a process that happens to inanimate objects like cars,
143
359000
4000
06:28
and it also happens to us,
144
363000
2000
06:30
despite the fact that we have a lot of clever self-repair mechanisms,
145
365000
3000
06:33
because those self-repair mechanisms are not perfect.
146
368000
2000
06:35
So basically, metabolism, which is defined as
147
370000
2000
06:37
basically everything that keeps us alive from one day to the next,
148
372000
3000
06:40
has side effects.
149
375000
2000
06:42
Those side effects accumulate and eventually cause pathology.
150
377000
2000
06:44
That's a fine definition. So we can put it this way:
151
379000
2000
06:46
we can say that, you know, we have this chain of events.
152
381000
2000
06:48
And there are really two games in town,
153
383000
2000
06:50
according to most people, with regard to postponing aging.
154
385000
3000
06:53
They're what I'm calling here the "gerontology approach" and the "geriatrics approach."
155
388000
4000
06:57
The geriatrician will intervene late in the day,
156
392000
2000
06:59
when pathology is becoming evident,
157
394000
2000
07:01
and the geriatrician will try and hold back the sands of time,
158
396000
3000
07:04
and stop the accumulation of side effects
159
399000
3000
07:07
from causing the pathology quite so soon.
160
402000
2000
07:09
Of course, it's a very short-term-ist strategy; it's a losing battle,
161
404000
3000
07:12
because the things that are causing the pathology
162
407000
3000
07:15
are becoming more abundant as time goes on.
163
410000
2000
07:17
The gerontology approach looks much more promising on the surface,
164
412000
4000
07:21
because, you know, prevention is better than cure.
165
416000
3000
07:24
But unfortunately the thing is that we don't understand metabolism very well.
166
419000
3000
07:27
In fact, we have a pitifully poor understanding of how organisms work --
167
422000
3000
07:30
even cells we're not really too good on yet.
168
425000
2000
07:32
We've discovered things like, for example,
169
427000
2000
07:34
RNA interference only a few years ago,
170
429000
3000
07:37
and this is a really fundamental component of how cells work.
171
432000
2000
07:39
Basically, gerontology is a fine approach in the end,
172
434000
3000
07:42
but it is not an approach whose time has come
173
437000
2000
07:44
when we're talking about intervention.
174
439000
2000
07:46
So then, what do we do about that?
175
441000
3000
07:49
I mean, that's a fine logic, that sounds pretty convincing,
176
444000
2000
07:51
pretty ironclad, doesn't it?
177
446000
2000
07:53
But it isn't.
178
448000
2000
07:55
Before I tell you why it isn't, I'm going to go a little bit
179
450000
3000
07:58
into what I'm calling step two.
180
453000
2000
08:00
Just suppose, as I said, that we do acquire --
181
455000
4000
08:04
let's say we do it today for the sake of argument --
182
459000
2000
08:06
the ability to confer 30 extra years of healthy life
183
461000
4000
08:10
on people who are already in middle age, let's say 55.
184
465000
3000
08:13
I'm going to call that "robust human rejuvenation." OK.
185
468000
3000
08:16
What would that actually mean
186
471000
1000
08:17
for how long people of various ages today --
187
472000
3000
08:20
or equivalently, of various ages at the time that these therapies arrive --
188
475000
3000
08:24
would actually live?
189
479000
1000
08:26
In order to answer that question -- you might think it's simple,
190
481000
2000
08:28
but it's not simple.
191
483000
1000
08:29
We can't just say, "Well, if they're young enough to benefit from these therapies,
192
484000
3000
08:32
then they'll live 30 years longer."
193
487000
1000
08:33
That's the wrong answer.
194
488000
2000
08:35
And the reason it's the wrong answer is because of progress.
195
490000
2000
08:37
There are two sorts of technological progress really,
196
492000
2000
08:39
for this purpose.
197
494000
1000
08:40
There are fundamental, major breakthroughs,
198
495000
3000
08:43
and there are incremental refinements of those breakthroughs.
199
498000
4000
08:47
Now, they differ a great deal
200
502000
2000
08:49
in terms of the predictability of time frames.
201
504000
3000
08:52
Fundamental breakthroughs:
202
507000
1000
08:53
very hard to predict how long it's going to take
203
508000
2000
08:55
to make a fundamental breakthrough.
204
510000
1000
08:56
It was a very long time ago that we decided that flying would be fun,
205
511000
3000
08:59
and it took us until 1903 to actually work out how to do it.
206
514000
3000
09:02
But after that, things were pretty steady and pretty uniform.
207
517000
4000
09:06
I think this is a reasonable sequence of events that happened
208
521000
3000
09:09
in the progression of the technology of powered flight.
209
524000
4000
09:13
We can think, really, that each one is sort of
210
528000
4000
09:17
beyond the imagination of the inventor of the previous one, if you like.
211
532000
3000
09:20
The incremental advances have added up to something
212
535000
4000
09:24
which is not incremental anymore.
213
539000
2000
09:26
This is the sort of thing you see after a fundamental breakthrough.
214
541000
3000
09:29
And you see it in all sorts of technologies.
215
544000
2000
09:31
Computers: you can look at a more or less parallel time line,
216
546000
3000
09:34
happening of course a bit later.
217
549000
1000
09:35
You can look at medical care. I mean, hygiene, vaccines, antibiotics --
218
550000
3000
09:38
you know, the same sort of time frame.
219
553000
2000
09:40
So I think that actually step two, that I called a step a moment ago,
220
555000
4000
09:44
isn't a step at all.
221
559000
1000
09:45
That in fact, the people who are young enough
222
560000
3000
09:48
to benefit from these first therapies
223
563000
2000
09:50
that give this moderate amount of life extension,
224
565000
2000
09:52
even though those people are already middle-aged when the therapies arrive,
225
567000
4000
09:56
will be at some sort of cusp.
226
571000
2000
09:58
They will mostly survive long enough to receive improved treatments
227
573000
4000
10:02
that will give them a further 30 or maybe 50 years.
228
577000
2000
10:04
In other words, they will be staying ahead of the game.
229
579000
3000
10:07
The therapies will be improving faster than
230
582000
3000
10:10
the remaining imperfections in the therapies are catching up with us.
231
585000
4000
10:14
This is a very important point for me to get across.
232
589000
2000
10:16
Because, you know, most people, when they hear
233
591000
2000
10:18
that I predict that a lot of people alive today are going to live to 1,000 or more,
234
593000
5000
10:23
they think that I'm saying that we're going to invent therapies in the next few decades
235
598000
4000
10:27
that are so thoroughly eliminating aging
236
602000
3000
10:30
that those therapies will let us live to 1,000 or more.
237
605000
3000
10:33
I'm not saying that at all.
238
608000
2000
10:35
I'm saying that the rate of improvement of those therapies
239
610000
2000
10:37
will be enough.
240
612000
1000
10:38
They'll never be perfect, but we'll be able to fix the things
241
613000
3000
10:41
that 200-year-olds die of, before we have any 200-year-olds.
242
616000
3000
10:44
And the same for 300 and 400 and so on.
243
619000
2000
10:46
I decided to give this a little name,
244
621000
3000
10:49
which is "longevity escape velocity."
245
624000
1000
10:51
(Laughter)
246
626000
2000
10:53
Well, it seems to get the point across.
247
628000
3000
10:56
So, these trajectories here are basically how we would expect people to live,
248
631000
5000
11:01
in terms of remaining life expectancy,
249
636000
2000
11:03
as measured by their health,
250
638000
2000
11:05
for given ages that they were at the time that these therapies arrive.
251
640000
3000
11:08
If you're already 100, or even if you're 80 --
252
643000
2000
11:10
and an average 80-year-old,
253
645000
2000
11:12
we probably can't do a lot for you with these therapies,
254
647000
2000
11:14
because you're too close to death's door
255
649000
2000
11:16
for the really initial, experimental therapies to be good enough for you.
256
651000
4000
11:20
You won't be able to withstand them.
257
655000
1000
11:21
But if you're only 50, then there's a chance
258
656000
2000
11:23
that you might be able to pull out of the dive and, you know --
259
658000
3000
11:26
(Laughter) --
260
661000
1000
11:27
eventually get through this
261
662000
3000
11:30
and start becoming biologically younger in a meaningful sense,
262
665000
3000
11:33
in terms of your youthfulness, both physical and mental,
263
668000
2000
11:35
and in terms of your risk of death from age-related causes.
264
670000
2000
11:37
And of course, if you're a bit younger than that,
265
672000
2000
11:39
then you're never really even going
266
674000
2000
11:41
to get near to being fragile enough to die of age-related causes.
267
676000
3000
11:44
So this is a genuine conclusion that I come to, that the first 150-year-old --
268
679000
5000
11:49
we don't know how old that person is today,
269
684000
2000
11:51
because we don't know how long it's going to take
270
686000
2000
11:53
to get these first-generation therapies.
271
688000
2000
11:55
But irrespective of that age,
272
690000
2000
11:57
I'm claiming that the first person to live to 1,000 --
273
692000
4000
12:01
subject of course, to, you know, global catastrophes --
274
696000
3000
12:04
is actually, probably, only about 10 years younger than the first 150-year-old.
275
699000
4000
12:08
And that's quite a thought.
276
703000
2000
12:10
Alright, so finally I'm going to spend the rest of the talk,
277
705000
3000
12:13
my last seven-and-a-half minutes, on step one;
278
708000
3000
12:16
namely, how do we actually get to this moderate amount of life extension
279
711000
5000
12:21
that will allow us to get to escape velocity?
280
716000
3000
12:24
And in order to do that, I need to talk about mice a little bit.
281
719000
4000
12:28
I have a corresponding milestone to robust human rejuvenation.
282
723000
3000
12:31
I'm calling it "robust mouse rejuvenation," not very imaginatively.
283
726000
3000
12:34
And this is what it is.
284
729000
2000
12:36
I say we're going to take a long-lived strain of mouse,
285
731000
2000
12:38
which basically means mice that live about three years on average.
286
733000
3000
12:41
We do exactly nothing to them until they're already two years old.
287
736000
3000
12:44
And then we do a whole bunch of stuff to them,
288
739000
2000
12:46
and with those therapies, we get them to live,
289
741000
2000
12:48
on average, to their fifth birthday.
290
743000
2000
12:50
So, in other words, we add two years --
291
745000
2000
12:52
we treble their remaining lifespan,
292
747000
2000
12:54
starting from the point that we started the therapies.
293
749000
2000
12:56
The question then is, what would that actually mean for the time frame
294
751000
3000
12:59
until we get to the milestone I talked about earlier for humans?
295
754000
3000
13:02
Which we can now, as I've explained,
296
757000
2000
13:04
equivalently call either robust human rejuvenation or longevity escape velocity.
297
759000
4000
13:08
Secondly, what does it mean for the public's perception
298
763000
3000
13:11
of how long it's going to take for us to get to those things,
299
766000
2000
13:13
starting from the time we get the mice?
300
768000
2000
13:15
And thirdly, the question is, what will it do
301
770000
2000
13:17
to actually how much people want it?
302
772000
1000
13:19
And it seems to me that the first question
303
774000
2000
13:21
is entirely a biology question,
304
776000
1000
13:22
and it's extremely hard to answer.
305
777000
2000
13:24
One has to be very speculative,
306
779000
2000
13:26
and many of my colleagues would say that we should not do this speculation,
307
781000
3000
13:29
that we should simply keep our counsel until we know more.
308
784000
4000
13:33
I say that's nonsense.
309
788000
1000
13:34
I say we absolutely are irresponsible if we stay silent on this.
310
789000
3000
13:37
We need to give our best guess as to the time frame,
311
792000
3000
13:40
in order to give people a sense of proportion
312
795000
3000
13:43
so that they can assess their priorities.
313
798000
2000
13:45
So, I say that we have a 50/50 chance
314
800000
3000
13:48
of reaching this RHR milestone,
315
803000
2000
13:50
robust human rejuvenation, within 15 years from the point
316
805000
3000
13:53
that we get to robust mouse rejuvenation.
317
808000
2000
13:55
15 years from the robust mouse.
318
810000
3000
13:58
The public's perception will probably be somewhat better than that.
319
813000
3000
14:01
The public tends to underestimate how difficult scientific things are.
320
816000
2000
14:03
So they'll probably think it's five years away.
321
818000
2000
14:05
They'll be wrong, but that actually won't matter too much.
322
820000
2000
14:07
And finally, of course, I think it's fair to say
323
822000
3000
14:10
that a large part of the reason why the public is so ambivalent about aging now
324
825000
4000
14:14
is the global trance I spoke about earlier, the coping strategy.
325
829000
2000
14:16
That will be history at this point,
326
831000
2000
14:18
because it will no longer be possible to believe that aging is inevitable in humans,
327
833000
3000
14:21
since it's been postponed so very effectively in mice.
328
836000
3000
14:24
So we're likely to end up with a very strong change in people's attitudes,
329
839000
4000
14:28
and of course that has enormous implications.
330
843000
2000
14:31
So in order to tell you now how we're going to get these mice,
331
846000
2000
14:34
I'm going to add a little bit to my description of aging.
332
849000
2000
14:36
I'm going to use this word "damage"
333
851000
2000
14:38
to denote these intermediate things that are caused by metabolism
334
853000
4000
14:42
and that eventually cause pathology.
335
857000
2000
14:44
Because the critical thing about this
336
859000
2000
14:46
is that even though the damage only eventually causes pathology,
337
861000
2000
14:48
the damage itself is caused ongoing-ly throughout life, starting before we're born.
338
863000
5000
14:53
But it is not part of metabolism itself.
339
868000
3000
14:56
And this turns out to be useful.
340
871000
1000
14:57
Because we can re-draw our original diagram this way.
341
872000
3000
15:00
We can say that, fundamentally, the difference between gerontology and geriatrics
342
875000
3000
15:03
is that gerontology tries to inhibit the rate
343
878000
2000
15:05
at which metabolism lays down this damage.
344
880000
2000
15:07
And I'm going to explain exactly what damage is
345
882000
2000
15:09
in concrete biological terms in a moment.
346
884000
2000
15:12
And geriatricians try to hold back the sands of time
347
887000
2000
15:14
by stopping the damage converting into pathology.
348
889000
2000
15:16
And the reason it's a losing battle
349
891000
2000
15:18
is because the damage is continuing to accumulate.
350
893000
2000
15:20
So there's a third approach, if we look at it this way.
351
895000
3000
15:23
We can call it the "engineering approach,"
352
898000
2000
15:25
and I claim that the engineering approach is within range.
353
900000
3000
15:28
The engineering approach does not intervene in any processes.
354
903000
3000
15:31
It does not intervene in this process or this one.
355
906000
2000
15:33
And that's good because it means that it's not a losing battle,
356
908000
3000
15:36
and it's something that we are within range of being able to do,
357
911000
3000
15:39
because it doesn't involve improving on evolution.
358
914000
3000
15:42
The engineering approach simply says,
359
917000
2000
15:44
"Let's go and periodically repair all of these various types of damage --
360
919000
4000
15:48
not necessarily repair them completely, but repair them quite a lot,
361
923000
4000
15:52
so that we keep the level of damage down below the threshold
362
927000
3000
15:55
that must exist, that causes it to be pathogenic."
363
930000
3000
15:58
We know that this threshold exists,
364
933000
2000
16:00
because we don't get age-related diseases until we're in middle age,
365
935000
3000
16:03
even though the damage has been accumulating since before we were born.
366
938000
3000
16:06
Why do I say that we're in range? Well, this is basically it.
367
941000
4000
16:10
The point about this slide is actually the bottom.
368
945000
3000
16:13
If we try to say which bits of metabolism are important for aging,
369
948000
3000
16:16
we will be here all night, because basically all of metabolism
370
951000
3000
16:19
is important for aging in one way or another.
371
954000
2000
16:21
This list is just for illustration; it is incomplete.
372
956000
2000
16:24
The list on the right is also incomplete.
373
959000
2000
16:26
It's a list of types of pathology that are age-related,
374
961000
3000
16:29
and it's just an incomplete list.
375
964000
2000
16:31
But I would like to claim to you that this list in the middle is actually complete --
376
966000
3000
16:34
this is the list of types of thing that qualify as damage,
377
969000
3000
16:37
side effects of metabolism that cause pathology in the end,
378
972000
3000
16:40
or that might cause pathology.
379
975000
2000
16:42
And there are only seven of them.
380
977000
3000
16:45
They're categories of things, of course, but there's only seven of them.
381
980000
3000
16:48
Cell loss, mutations in chromosomes, mutations in the mitochondria and so on.
382
983000
5000
16:53
First of all, I'd like to give you an argument for why that list is complete.
383
988000
5000
16:58
Of course one can make a biological argument.
384
993000
2000
17:00
One can say, "OK, what are we made of?"
385
995000
2000
17:02
We're made of cells and stuff between cells.
386
997000
2000
17:04
What can damage accumulate in?
387
999000
3000
17:07
The answer is: long-lived molecules,
388
1002000
2000
17:09
because if a short-lived molecule undergoes damage, but then the molecule is destroyed --
389
1004000
3000
17:12
like by a protein being destroyed by proteolysis -- then the damage is gone, too.
390
1007000
4000
17:16
It's got to be long-lived molecules.
391
1011000
2000
17:18
So, these seven things were all under discussion in gerontology a long time ago
392
1013000
3000
17:21
and that is pretty good news, because it means that,
393
1016000
4000
17:25
you know, we've come a long way in biology in these 20 years,
394
1020000
2000
17:27
so the fact that we haven't extended this list
395
1022000
2000
17:29
is a pretty good indication that there's no extension to be done.
396
1024000
3000
17:33
However, it's better than that; we actually know how to fix them all,
397
1028000
2000
17:35
in mice, in principle -- and what I mean by in principle is,
398
1030000
3000
17:38
we probably can actually implement these fixes within a decade.
399
1033000
3000
17:41
Some of them are partially implemented already, the ones at the top.
400
1036000
4000
17:45
I haven't got time to go through them at all, but
401
1040000
3000
17:48
my conclusion is that, if we can actually get suitable funding for this,
402
1043000
4000
17:52
then we can probably develop robust mouse rejuvenation in only 10 years,
403
1047000
4000
17:56
but we do need to get serious about it.
404
1051000
3000
17:59
We do need to really start trying.
405
1054000
1000
18:01
So of course, there are some biologists in the audience,
406
1056000
3000
18:04
and I want to give some answers to some of the questions that you may have.
407
1059000
3000
18:07
You may have been dissatisfied with this talk,
408
1062000
2000
18:09
but fundamentally you have to go and read this stuff.
409
1064000
2000
18:11
I've published a great deal on this;
410
1066000
2000
18:13
I cite the experimental work on which my optimism is based,
411
1068000
3000
18:16
and there's quite a lot of detail there.
412
1071000
2000
18:18
The detail is what makes me confident
413
1073000
2000
18:20
of my rather aggressive time frames that I'm predicting here.
414
1075000
2000
18:22
So if you think that I'm wrong,
415
1077000
2000
18:24
you'd better damn well go and find out why you think I'm wrong.
416
1079000
3000
18:28
And of course the main thing is that you shouldn't trust people
417
1083000
3000
18:31
who call themselves gerontologists because,
418
1086000
2000
18:33
as with any radical departure from previous thinking within a particular field,
419
1088000
4000
18:37
you know, you expect people in the mainstream to be a bit resistant
420
1092000
4000
18:41
and not really to take it seriously.
421
1096000
2000
18:43
So, you know, you've got to actually do your homework,
422
1098000
2000
18:45
in order to understand whether this is true.
423
1100000
1000
18:46
And we'll just end with a few things.
424
1101000
2000
18:48
One thing is, you know, you'll be hearing from a guy in the next session
425
1103000
3000
18:51
who said some time ago that he could sequence the human genome in half no time,
426
1106000
4000
18:55
and everyone said, "Well, it's obviously impossible."
427
1110000
2000
18:57
And you know what happened.
428
1112000
1000
18:58
So, you know, this does happen.
429
1113000
4000
19:02
We have various strategies -- there's the Methuselah Mouse Prize,
430
1117000
2000
19:04
which is basically an incentive to innovate,
431
1119000
3000
19:07
and to do what you think is going to work,
432
1122000
3000
19:10
and you get money for it if you win.
433
1125000
2000
19:13
There's a proposal to actually put together an institute.
434
1128000
3000
19:16
This is what's going to take a bit of money.
435
1131000
2000
19:18
But, I mean, look -- how long does it take to spend that on the war in Iraq?
436
1133000
3000
19:21
Not very long. OK.
437
1136000
1000
19:22
(Laughter)
438
1137000
1000
19:23
It's got to be philanthropic, because profits distract biotech,
439
1138000
3000
19:26
but it's basically got a 90 percent chance, I think, of succeeding in this.
440
1141000
4000
19:30
And I think we know how to do it. And I'll stop there.
441
1145000
3000
19:33
Thank you.
442
1148000
1000
19:34
(Applause)
443
1149000
5000
19:39
Chris Anderson: OK. I don't know if there's going to be any questions
444
1154000
3000
19:42
but I thought I would give people the chance.
445
1157000
2000
19:44
Audience: Since you've been talking about aging and trying to defeat it,
446
1159000
4000
19:48
why is it that you make yourself appear like an old man?
447
1163000
4000
19:52
(Laughter)
448
1167000
4000
19:56
AG: Because I am an old man. I am actually 158.
449
1171000
3000
19:59
(Laughter)
450
1174000
1000
20:00
(Applause)
451
1175000
3000
20:03
Audience: Species on this planet have evolved with immune systems
452
1178000
4000
20:07
to fight off all the diseases so that individuals live long enough to procreate.
453
1182000
4000
20:11
However, as far as I know, all the species have evolved to actually die,
454
1186000
5000
20:16
so when cells divide, the telomerase get shorter, and eventually species die.
455
1191000
5000
20:21
So, why does -- evolution has -- seems to have selected against immortality,
456
1196000
5000
20:26
when it is so advantageous, or is evolution just incomplete?
457
1201000
4000
20:30
AG: Brilliant. Thank you for asking a question
458
1205000
2000
20:32
that I can answer with an uncontroversial answer.
459
1207000
2000
20:34
I'm going to tell you the genuine mainstream answer to your question,
460
1209000
3000
20:37
which I happen to agree with,
461
1212000
2000
20:39
which is that, no, aging is not a product of selection, evolution;
462
1214000
3000
20:42
[aging] is simply a product of evolutionary neglect.
463
1217000
2000
20:45
In other words, we have aging because it's hard work not to have aging;
464
1220000
5000
20:50
you need more genetic pathways, more sophistication in your genes
465
1225000
2000
20:52
in order to age more slowly,
466
1227000
2000
20:54
and that carries on being true the longer you push it out.
467
1229000
3000
20:57
So, to the extent that evolution doesn't matter,
468
1232000
5000
21:02
doesn't care whether genes are passed on by individuals,
469
1237000
2000
21:04
living a long time or by procreation,
470
1239000
2000
21:07
there's a certain amount of modulation of that,
471
1242000
2000
21:09
which is why different species have different lifespans,
472
1244000
3000
21:12
but that's why there are no immortal species.
473
1247000
2000
21:15
CA: The genes don't care but we do?
474
1250000
2000
21:17
AG: That's right.
475
1252000
1000
21:19
Audience: Hello. I read somewhere that in the last 20 years,
476
1254000
5000
21:24
the average lifespan of basically anyone on the planet has grown by 10 years.
477
1259000
5000
21:29
If I project that, that would make me think
478
1264000
3000
21:32
that I would live until 120 if I don't crash on my motorbike.
479
1267000
4000
21:37
That means that I'm one of your subjects to become a 1,000-year-old?
480
1272000
5000
21:42
AG: If you lose a bit of weight.
481
1277000
1000
21:44
(Laughter)
482
1279000
3000
21:47
Your numbers are a bit out.
483
1282000
3000
21:50
The standard numbers are that lifespans
484
1285000
3000
21:53
have been growing at between one and two years per decade.
485
1288000
3000
21:56
So, it's not quite as good as you might think, you might hope.
486
1291000
3000
22:00
But I intend to move it up to one year per year as soon as possible.
487
1295000
2000
22:03
Audience: I was told that many of the brain cells we have as adults
488
1298000
3000
22:06
are actually in the human embryo,
489
1301000
1000
22:08
and that the brain cells last 80 years or so.
490
1303000
2000
22:10
If that is indeed true,
491
1305000
2000
22:12
biologically are there implications in the world of rejuvenation?
492
1307000
3000
22:15
If there are cells in my body that live all 80 years,
493
1310000
3000
22:18
as opposed to a typical, you know, couple of months?
494
1313000
2000
22:20
AG: There are technical implications certainly.
495
1315000
2000
22:22
Basically what we need to do is replace cells
496
1317000
3000
22:26
in those few areas of the brain that lose cells at a respectable rate,
497
1321000
3000
22:29
especially neurons, but we don't want to replace them
498
1324000
3000
22:32
any faster than that -- or not much faster anyway,
499
1327000
2000
22:34
because replacing them too fast would degrade cognitive function.
500
1329000
4000
22:38
What I said about there being no non-aging species earlier on
501
1333000
3000
22:41
was a little bit of an oversimplification.
502
1336000
2000
22:43
There are species that have no aging -- Hydra for example --
503
1338000
4000
22:47
but they do it by not having a nervous system --
504
1342000
2000
22:49
and not having any tissues in fact that rely for their function
505
1344000
2000
22:51
on very long-lived cells.
506
1346000
2000
ABOUT THE SPEAKER
Aubrey de Grey - Crusader against agingAubrey de Grey, British researcher on aging, claims he has drawn a roadmap to defeat biological aging. He provocatively proposes that the first human beings who will live to 1,000 years old have already been born.
Why you should listen
A true maverick, Aubrey de Grey challenges the most basic assumption underlying the human condition -- that aging is inevitable. He argues instead that aging is a disease -- one that can be cured if it's approached as "an engineering problem." His plan calls for identifying all the components that cause human tissue to age, and designing remedies for each of them — forestalling disease and eventually pushing back death. He calls the approach Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence (SENS).
With his astonishingly long beard, wiry frame and penchant for bold and cutting proclamations, de Grey is a magnet for controversy. A computer scientist, self-taught biogerontologist and researcher, he has co-authored journal articles with some of the most respected scientists in the field.
But the scientific community doesn't know what to make of him. In July 2005, the MIT Technology Review challenged scientists to disprove de Grey's claims, offering a $20,000 prize (half the prize money was put up by de Grey's Methuselah Foundation) to any molecular biologist who could demonstrate that "SENS is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate." The challenge remains open; the judging panel includes TEDsters Craig Venter and Nathan Myhrvold. It seems that "SENS exists in a middle ground of yet-to-be-tested ideas that some people may find intriguing but which others are free to doubt," MIT's judges wrote. And while they "don't compel the assent of many knowledgeable scientists," they're also "not demonstrably wrong."
Aubrey de Grey | Speaker | TED.com