Technology Review has posted the judges' decision. I've just skimmed it so far, but basically the outcome is a mixed decision. They think Estep et al.'s submission is the best, and de Grey's defense was not convincing, so they're giving them half the money. On the other hand, they don't think Estep et al. disproved de Grey's program. Here's a brief excerpt from Technology Review's article about the results:
In short, 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.
It seems to me like the judges were asking for way too much (and there's also a lengthy response from the winners to this effect). The task was to explain why other scientists don't take de Grey seriously, not to exhaustively disprove every half-baked idea he has ever uttered. I bet my dog too has ideas about medical science that exist in that "antechamber of science" waiting for verification, but I don't expect people to write a book in order to rebut him. If you accept Estep's argument that de Grey is doing pseudoscience, then by definition you don't need to honor his work with a detailed analysis.
Update/more: Okay, maybe I was hallucinating, but I could swear the "No one has won" subtitle was not on the Technology Review page when I read it last night. It looks a little more decisive when presented that way. Still, it seems to me the judges were lazy, both in the brevity of their summary (I have a sneaking suspicion that they didn't even read all the material) and in the depth of their analysis. They write,
"At issue is the conflict between the scientific process and the ambiguous status of ideas that have not yet been subjected to that process."
I think that's incorrect, at least as I understand the point of this challenge. The idea is not to discount undeveloped ideas or amateur science. In fact, I doubt anyone denies Aubrey de Grey the right to do this research and publish it where he can. The question is whether anyone should pay attention to him when he tries to hijack funding and misinform people with sensational claims.
The response from Estep et al. is worth reading in full. A brief excerpt:
The summary of the judges' opinion states that SENS is not "demonstrably wrong," and Craig Venter says we have "not demonstrated that SENS is unworthy of discussion." It seems they suggest that SENS is highly speculative theorizing but not outside the bounds of legitimate science or engineering speculation. We strongly disagree with this assessment. Here are three primary attributes of SENS that differentiate it from the kind of nascent science or engineering described by the judges:
1. Direct contradiction of key claims by much available and generally accepted evidence.
2. Aubrey de Grey's pervasive falsehoods and misrepresentations.
3. Aubrey de Grey's demonstrated misunderstanding of relevant science and engineering.
These attributes might not make SENS "unworthy of discussion" by willfully uninformed immortalist dreamers, but they certainly make SENS "unworthy of learned debate" by people interested in real gerontological science and engineering.
And, if you haven't had enough yet, Aubrey de Grey and Preston Estep continue to debate in the comments to that article.
In any case, I think Technology Review should leave the radical life extension fantasies to the Omni-style magazines (and of course the web) and get on with more serious business.
The copy did go through a number of changes in the half day after its initial posting. Jason Pontin posted to the GRG list to say that the first header was put up there by his copy folk; he wasn't happy with it at all and changed it once he saw it.
Early annoyance at the changes and some technical issues with the TR site can be found in this thread:
http://www.imminst.org/forum/index.php?act=ST&f=69&t=10328&s=
Personally, I'd like to see the full text of the judge's response.
While you no doubt utterly disagree with my wider point of view, you may gain some mileage out of my points with respect to science versus engineering, proposals versus past projects in the following items:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/news/view_news_item.cfm?news_id=2530
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/000905.php
Posted by: Reason | Thursday, July 13, 2006 at 08:52 PM