Ronald Bailey: Plastic Brains, Femmebots, and Aliens Watching TV

Reason Online's science correspondant Ronald Bailey has published his account of the Humanity+ Summit recently held at Harvard University.

Bailey to Vatican: "Is Suppressing Scientific Research Sinful?"

So, the Vatican has declared "experiments [and] genetic manipulation" as "violations of certain fundamental rights of human nature."

Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey has put a delightful spin on this and wonders if scientific ignorance and the suppression of vital biotechnological research is the true evil at play here:

First, the Vatican has not spoken with clarity on the issue of genetically improving crops. Back in 2003, the London Times reported that the Vatican would soon come out in favor of biotech crops as part of the solution for world starvation and malnutrition. A year later, a message from Pope John Paul II expressed reservations about biotech crops. Last year, Filipino Archbishop Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales warned that "genetically modified crops and food products could be very harmful to the environment and to human beings." The Archbishop is factually wrong about the alleged dangers of current biotech crops. What are the divine penalties for the sin of scientific ignorance?

The Roman Catholic and generally free market think tank, the Acton Institute, notes that some religious thinkers believe that it might be all right with God for us to modify plants, but not animals. The distinction is based upon the idea that while God commanded Noah to save animal lineages, the Almighty said nothing about preserving plants on the Ark. As evangelical biologist Calvin Dewitt explains, "These lineages are creations of the Creator, and they are... gifts to the whole of creation."

However, the Creator doesn't seem to be much of a steward of His Creation, since an estimated 99.9 percent of all species that ever lived are now extinct. And of course, argument against genetically modifying animals overlooks the fact that the genetic lineages of all domesticated animals have been dramatically modified by people over the millennia. Perhaps the souls of some of our ancestors are roasting in the infernal abyss for the sin of turning wolves into dogs and aurochs into Holsteins.

This is a great article and I suggest that you read more.

Crafting the practical case for life extension in Chicago

This past Monday July 23 the Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies conducted a short but intense one day symposium on securing the longevity dividend. The event was held at the picturesque Fairmont Hotel in Chicago and attended by about 40 passionate enthusiasts from a diverse set of backgrounds.

Rather than choosing to wax philosophical about the ethical imperatives in favour of life extension, the organizers of the IEET symposium specifically geared the event around the work of Jay Olshansky and his efforts to frame the discussion in more practical terms.

In other words, money.

Indeed, the case for a longevity dividend – the idea that prolonging life will save not just lives, but oodles of cash -- is beginning to take shape. As Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey noted, “It's a way of rebranding the quest for extending human lives in a politically palatable way.”

Among the many alarming statistics presented by Olshansky, he noted that as a person ages their risk of dying doubles every 7 years. And as the expense required to keep people alive continues to escalate, society could be in for some serious economic trouble. Olshansky estimates that by 2030 the medical costs in the U.S. alone will reach a staggering $16,000,000,000,000.

To deal with this pending crisis, Olshansky suggests that we need to keep people healthy by working to develop more meaningful interventions in life extension, whether it be genetics, insights gained from the effects of caloric restriction, or the development of compounds with properties that appear to slow aging. Ultimately, the goal is to extend maximum healthy life span and drive medical costs down.

At the same time, Olshansky critiqued the tendency towards an explicit “anti-aging” sentiment. Quite interestingly, he sees aging as a positive and wisdom-endowing process. His goal is more modest than those of the transhumanists who which to eliminate death altogether. Instead, Olshansky urges that we should simply strive to extend maximize healthy lifespan as much as possible.

In terms of increasing life expectancy, both Olshansky and the transhumanists are on the same page; it is agreed that work needs to be done to reduce the ravages of aging as much as possible. It is also agreed that the word needs to get out. Money is the language of politics, and while they may not understand the intricacies of biogerontology or the ethics of prolonging life, politicians can most assuredly understand the impact on the bottom dollar.

But not everyone at the symposium agreed with Olshansky. Gerontologist Aubrey de Grey, while supportive of Olshansky’s work, was skeptical that a focus on the longevity dividend would result in a decrease in medical costs. As de Grey argued, there will still be costs -- if not considerable costs -- even in a world in which senescence has been greatly retarded. The goal, says de Grey, is to work towards the development of anti-aging interventions intended to eliminate death altogether.

Regarding public support, de Grey urged that more PR work needs to be done on his behalf; Aubrey wants better funding. He mentioned his supreme disinterest in politics and politicians, who he believes are merely looking towards the next election and pandering to the needs of their constituency. The trick, he says, is to sway these constituencies on the side of life extension.

As for de Grey’s talk itself, it was vintage caffeine-inspired Aubrey -- but this time he was also full of piss and vinegar. It was angry Aubrey, on the offense and lashing out at those critics who he accused of being dismissive of his work out of sheer incredulity and little else. He eventually returned to more substantive issues by addressing Olshansky’s longevity dividend and his own work, including his upcoming book, Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs that Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime.

Also speaking at the event was economist David Meltzer who dazzled attendees with abstract renderings of economics equations and high economic concept. Anders Sandberg worked to frame more meaningful policy scenarios as they pertain to life extension; Ronald Bailey spoke of the political economy; I presented a summation and taxonomy of arguments both for and against life extension; and James Hughes demonstrated how coalitions should be built for anti-aging science and medicine by turning the symposium into a collaborative workshop.

The life extension community continues to take strides by expanding and attracting more effective allies. And by doing so it is acquiring a powerful arsenal of ethical, legal, political and economic rationales to support the claim for longer life.

The case for radical life extension continues to mature.

Read Ronald Bailey’s recap of the symposium.

Bailey on Fukuyama's 'eugenics'

Looks like I'm not the only one who interprets over-the-top regulation of human biotech as a form of eugenics. Reason science correspondent Ronald Bailey has penned a piece in which he warns, "Francis Fukuyama wants to control your reproductive decisions."

In the article, titled "Medievalizing Biotech Regulation," Bailey describes Fukuyama's recent initiative to create a regulatory agency in the United States that would be modeled after the British Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HEFA). This new agency would regulate the safety and efficacy of new biotechnologies and rule on their ethical merits. Fukuyama argues that it's time for "social control."

More specifically,

Fukuyama explained that the new agency would regulate anything having to do with assisted reproduction techniques (ART). This would include IVF, ooplasm transfer, sex selection either by pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) or sperm sorting. The agency would also regulate research involving human reproductive tissues including all embryonic stem cell research and anything dealing with human developmental biology....

Fukuyama would completely ban human reproductive cloning, the creation of human animal chimeras for the purpose of reproduction, germline genetic modifications, any procedure that would alter the genetic relationship of parents to children, and the patenting of human embryos.

I'm not opposed to regulatory agencies in principle; institutions such as these are both necessary and fairly inevitable. What concerns me, however, is when extreme bioconservatives like Fukuyama take the initiative. These regulatory precedents are dangerously constrictive. It is Fukuyama, after all, who has made it painfully clear that he is opposed to not just human enhancement, but life extending technologies as well.

As Bailey points out in his article, these regulatory bodies often function as bureaucratic obstructions to research and development. Moreover, when given too much political clout, and if guided by anachronistic notions of human reproduction and biology, these agencies may also act in a way that's reminiscent of 20th century eugenics.

Ultimately, Fukuyama's agency will work to enforce a preconceived, non-normative and state imposed vision of human reproduction and health in general.