Centerblue.org

Today there is news that scientists in the US and Japan have successfully created stem cells from regular human skin cells instead of relying on politically and ethically touchy embryos. In doing so they have accomplished a rare feat: they have managed to make everyone happy on all sides of the stem cell issue.

Personally it’s hard to see the ethical problem in using embryos to derive life-saving stem cells, especially if those embryos were destined for a dumpster in the back of a fertility clinic anyway. The “right to lifers” who object seem not to blink an eye at placing more importance on protecting a potential-but-unactualized human being than providing life-saving treatments to actual human beings who are desperately in need. So for me, this new discovery conjures a sigh of relief more than anything, knowing that these revolutionary treatments can now happen unimpeded.

For those on the other side of the issue, though, it must seem like a vindication. And you know what? They’re right, though perhaps not for the reasons they’d prefer.

Whatever anyone thinks of those who opposed embryonic stem cells, they were correct in insisting that we take a step back and ask ethical questions about revolutionary science. In that sense, they were vindicated because they forced the ethical discussion and ultimately the discovery of a stem cell solution that posed no ethical dilemmas to anyone.

The pace of technological change continues to accelerate at an exponential rate, leaving less and less time to ask–and more urgently, answer–fundamental moral questions about the technology we are unleashing.

Here are some examples of questions that must be answered in the next couple of decades, and some of them quite soon:

Some people find our slowness in facing these and other looming ethical questions so alarming that they have urged that we relinquish broad areas of technology lest we face destruction, the most famous example being Sun Microsystems founder Bill Joy’s seminal article in Wired magazine named “Why The Future Doesn’t Need Us.”

I think no such thing–the potential benefits of all these technologies vastly outweigh their risks, and in any case it’s impossible to put any technological genie back in its bottle. But it’s imperative that we ask these questions and come about these technologies in a way that is as safe, sane, and ethical as possible.

Score one for people who questioned the ethics of stem-cell technology–not because I agree with your stance about human embryos, but because you encouraged asking the right questions.

Here’s a very interesting video on where technology is progressively taking us by 2100. (Turn the volume down, the music is rather annoying).

What’s contained in this video isn’t the dream of some sci-fi junkie. The possibilities depicted are the work of some of the planet’s most respected scientists and thinkers who understand the accelerating trends in artificial intelligence and nanotechnology. Work is already underway to make some of the earlier predictions shown in the video a reality.

One notable omission from the video is how our emerging technology will handle global warming–because if we don’t deal with that problem then all bets are off. But I do believe that we will eventually possess ways of removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere so that we can return our planet to its normal pre-industrial state (and there’s a prize out there waiting to be claimed right now by whoever comes up with an initial answer).

2006 was a remarkable year in the realm of science, as the law of accelerating technological returns continued apace at an increasing speed. From the advancement of brain-machine interfaces to using stem cells to cure blindness, humanity made astounding leaps in its use of technology to better understand and manipulate the world around it. This technology also forms an essential foundation for tackling the tremendous problems posed by increasing energy scarcity and global climate change.

I list here what I consider the top achievements for the year.

Robotics/Artificial Intelligence

1) Researchers demonstrate direct brain control over robot. Scientists have developed a method for allowing the control of a robot using thought control. The possibilities of this technology are immense–ranging from guiding machines in combat to providing direction to a planetary rover on Mars.

2) Researchers unveil self-aware robot. They created a four-legged machine but did not give it instructions on how to move. It had to learn that it was four-legged by trial and error, and by testing hypotheses. It eventually developed a sense of “self” that allowed it to strategize on how to move correctly, and later how to adapt as a result of an “injury” to one of its legs. This differs from previous robots that have had to be programmed to do specific tasks, without an ability to adapt. In so doing, this robot behaves more in line with a “conscious” animal like a cat.

Biotechnology

1) Pill made from red wine compound extends life of fat unhealthy mice. Obesity is a major problem in our society and a major cause of disease and premature death. Scientists have discovered that giving obese mice a pill made out of high doses of resveratrol, a compound found in red wine, eliminates the problems of obesity (fatty organs, insulin levels, etc.) even though the mice didn’t lose the weight. It also reversed the contributions of a bad diet on things like heart disease, cancer, etc. These mice went on to live as long as healthy ones, and research is underway to see if healthy mice given the compound will have their lives extended even longer.

2) Stem cells to be used to cure blindness. Scientists are using stem cells to restore retinal cells lost due to degenerative eye diseases, and have successfully restored vision to blind mice using this approach.

3) Brain-machine interfaces took drastic leaps forward in 2006. Several advances were seen this year on this front. In one study, a paralyzed patient became able to control his wheelchair by thought alone. Other scientists are developing a brain chip that can process muscle control commands and deliver them directly to paralyzed limbs, bypassing the source of paralysis.

4) Human bladders are grown in a lab and implanted in patients. Eventually scientists will be able to grow any organ using a patient’s own cells and then implant it to replace a diseased one, completely eliminating any tissue rejection issues.

5) Robotic worm can move through intestines. Scientists have developed a “worm” that can move through human intestines. It may someday contain cameras that can penetrate far deeper than today’s colonoscopies.

Nanotechnology

1) Nanowires generate electricity from body movement. Scientists have developed inexpensive nanowires that can harness our movement to provide energy to power machines. Anything from walking to breathing to the movement of our blood will eventually be able to provide energy to everything from IPOD’s to nanobots roaming inside our bodies. In a related development, nanowires have also been developed that convert light to electricity.

2) Polymer nanospheres target and destroy cancer cells. Researchers have developed particles that can target cancer cells and prevent them from spreading by slowly releasing drugs. This will greatly reduce the damage caused by conventional chemotherapy. This is part of a greater emerging movement in medicine that uses nanoparticles to specifically target and destroy disease at its source inside the body.

3) Semi-conducting nanowire transistors to make tiny computers and sensors possible. Scientists have developed a way to mass produce nanowire transistors that are much smaller and more efficient than existing ones. This will eventually make possible everything from tiny computers to ultra-sensitive sensors that can pick up the presence of hundreds of cancer markers and pathogens–in as little as five years from now.

4) Nano-membrane provides cheap drinkable water from the oceans. At a time when glaciers that provide life-giving water are disappearing at an alarming rate, with farmlands threatened by climate change all over the world, and with aquifers quickly being drained to nothing, our civilization needs a water solution fast and it needs it now. Nanotechnology provides the way, as scientists have developed a nano-membrane that reduces the cost of saltwater desalination by 75%. This will eventually lead to the creation of desalination plants that can efficiently create fresh water from the oceans. In a related development, nano-magnets have been created that can purify contaminated water.

Energy

1) Scientists design life forms to create ethanol from wood chips and agricultural waste. Ethanol provides an answer to our dangerous petroleum dependency, but using corn/soybeans/sugar/etc. for it causes competition between food and fuel. A much better answer is to use cellulosic agricultural waste and wood chips to create ethanol, but the means didn’t exist to do that until now. Scientists have developed organisms that metabolize these products and turn them into ethanol. This holds great promise as a new energy source in the future, and a cellulosic ethanol plant is already under construction. As an added bonus, ethanol contributes very little to global warming (since the amount of carbon spewed is roughly equal to the amount consumed by the plants themselves.)

2) Plug-in automobile hybrids are here. These hybrid automobiles allow you to plug them into a wall outlet, which will recharge their newer better batteries and allow more of their energy to come from electricity and less from fuel. This can be done with minimal construction of new plants by taking full advantage of plants’ peak capacities, rather than letting them stand idle during times when not everyone is running their air conditioners at full blast. Additionally, these cars will eventually serve to stabilize the power grid by providing excess power during times of emergency and by allowing users to sell power back to the grid when it’s unneeded.

3) Cheap super-efficient solar power is (almost) here. From drastically increasing the efficiency of solar cells, to being able to concentrate sunlight for increased performance, to more cheaply mass-producing solar cells, solar power is now close to being cost-competitive with fossil fuels. I hope to see the day soon when any household can put solar panels on its roof and not rely on the fossil fuel power grid for its needs.

Physics

1) Cloaking device becomes a reality. The pesky cloaking devices used by Romulans and Klingons that were such a pain to the Star Trek Enterprise crew may eventually become a reality. A cloaking device has been created that makes an object invisible–but only in the microwave frequency range for now (not in the visible light range). The problem with creating such a device for the visible light range is that it would have to be built at the nanoscale level due to the smaller frequency of light and that’s beyond the current capabilities of nanotechnology–for now.

This is another round up of recent news in science and technology that promise (threaten) to change the world we know, solve many of humanity’s problems, and maybe create new ones.

Drug under development doubles physical endurance in mice and expands their lifespan 30%. Scientists believe the drug, based off an ingredient in red wine, will have the same effect on humans. It “makes you look like a trained athlete without the training.” Soon, everyone will be a superhero.

Cell transplants restore sight in mice. Using immature retinal stem cells, scientists were able to restore sight to mice with types of damage similar to what causes blindness in humans. Blindness may become a thing of the past for everyone.

Researchers develop DNA switch that can connect living organisms to computers. This bio-nanotechnology breakthrough promises eventually to seamlessly interface human beings with their marchines. That drumbeat towards Kurzweil’s Singularity just got louder.

Appliances may soon be powered wirelessly. MIT researchers have devised a scheme for allowing appliances to be charged or powered with the need for messy wires or batteries.

Concentrated solar power may soon make it as cheap as fossil fuel electricity. Cheap solar power is one advancement that just can’t come soon enough to our overheated fossil fuel-powered world. The answer may be on the horizon.

“Nanoporous” material can safely absorb hydrogen fuel. One of the biggest challenges to rolling out hydrogen-powered cars is how to get them to safely store hydrogen fuel. This material could provide the answer.

British scientists grow human liver in a laboratory. One of the miracles of stem cell research will be the ability to grow new organs to replace damaged ones. While a full transplant is still probably a decade away, partial transplants could take place as soon as five years from now.

Researchers teach computers to think. Pictures scanned into a computer caused it to come up with highly accurate “tags” or key words that applied to each picture in question. The technology can also be used in other areas such as art collections and satellite images. Pattern recognition is a fundamental component of developing intelligence.

IBM is suing Amazon.com claiming the latter has infringed several of IBM’s patents, including one entitled “Ordering Items Using An Electronic Catalog”…a technology lying at the very heart of Amazon’s business. These patents seem to have been issued to IBM a long time ago, even as early as the 80’s in association with IBM’s Prodigy service.

I think that this lawsuit is an early portent of huge stakes that lie ahead. In a couple of decades, when/if nanotechnology becomes able to create objects by constructing them using nano-assemblers at the molecular level (think Star Trek’s food replicators) ALL of industry will be composed entirely of information blueprints for making the objects–and of course the patents associated with those blueprints will be extremely important. Patents, as guardians of information, are THE key to the future and these big companies know it…the companies who hold the patents will literally hold the keys to creation. Patents themselves will be the industrial base, not mega-factories spewing out materials. That’s what this lawsuit is about, at it’s most basic primitive level.

The lawsuit is also ridiculous in that the patents at issue seems very overbroad and encompass nearly all of online commerce. But that’s a flaw in patent law itself, and not necessarily the fault of IBM. Patent law seems not to be keeping up with the inherently new, pervasive, easily copied, and rapidly changing nature of Internet technology. Maybe this lawsuit will pave the way to a better set of laws that can better address the intellectual property issues of tomorrow.

I don’t know if it’s just that I’ve just been following technology news more closely lately or if it’s some other reason, but recent news of technological advances seems to be spinning further and further into the realm of science fiction. It seems that a clearer picture of what’s coming in the medium and long term is starting to emerge, and the results seem astonishing to me.

Centerblue.org will cover technology news occasionally given the importance of research in maintaining America’s technological edge and standard of living.

Computers/Artificial Intelligence/Robotics:

• Quantum Leap. Emerging technology in quantum computing will allow a laptop to have more power than trillions of today’s supercomputers. “The age of computing has not even begun,” says one research scientist. “What we have today are tiny toys not much better than an abacus.”
• Surfing the Web with nothing but brainwaves. Forget keyboards and mice. Soon, perhaps as early as 2012, we will command computers with our thoughts. As if that weren’t enough, communicating with another human being by using thought alone is not far behind (think instant messaging without having to type.) Yea, telepathy. Already it is possible to do things like open email and play Pong using thought alone. You won’t even need an implant to do all of this, but simply wear a cap.
• Brainy robots start stepping into daily life. Last year, a Pentagon-funded competition succeeded in getting a car to cross over 100 miles of desert with absolutely no human intervention. Next year, a similar competition will attempt to maneuver a car through urban traffic without human help. Additionally, within three years you’ll be able to parallel park a BMW simply by pushing a button.
• This is a computer on your brain. A new brain-machine interface allows image recognition faster than human consciousness currently allows.
• MIT researchers watch brain in action. New technology allows scientists to observe the brain in real time as it responds to experiences. Unlocking the keys to the brain’s functionality will accelerate the development of artificial intelligence.
• Robot destroys lung tumors quickly. “Synchrony” can track and target tumors that move as a result of breathing, allowing targeted bombardment with radiation. It can reduce treatment of lung cancer from dozens of hospital visits to 1-3 sessions.
• Wine-tasting robot to detect fraudulent bottles. A new robot will be able to verify that the wine in a bottle matches its label.

Biotechnology

• Building Artificial Viruses. We now have the capability to create artificial viruses using information readily available on the Internet. Yes, it is now possible to create life out of non-life. While the technology has great potential for everything from creating vaccines to cleaning up the environment, it also potentially very dangerous. Terrorist groups could design super-killer microbes in a matter of days and unleash them on unsuspecting populations. It makes the recently written-about biodefense facility being built by the US all that much more relevant.
• Carbon nanotubes you can live with. Carbon nanotubes have been made bio-compatible, whereas before they were toxic to cells. This advancement opens the possibility of a machine/biology interface at the cellular level.
• Researchers transform stem cells found in human fat into smooth muscle cells. They could eventually be used to repair tissue in blood vessels, intestines, and the urinary tract.

The Washington Post has a lengthy article on Republican Congressman Thomas Davis of Northern Virginia, who is the chair of the powerful House Government Reform Committee and who is considered one of Congress’s main authorities on technology issues. Davis’s close ties to a consulting company are being called into question.

Shortly before taking the chairmanship of the Committee, a close friend of his, Donald Upson, formed a company called ICG Government, a consulting company for firms that want to land government contracts–contracts that often come under the oversight of Davis’s committee. ICG also hired Davis’s wife as a consultant to ICG. ICG consults “on occasion” with Congressman Davis about its clients, even though the company has not registered as a lobbyist as required by lobbyist rules (ICG claims it has no need to do so given the “occasional” nature of its meetings with Davis.)

ICG has an excellent record among its clients, who say that ICG has provided them with access to the Congressman and his staff. Davis denies he has given ICG any special access by virtue of his relationship either with ICG’s founder or his wife.

Not surprisingly, the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct issued an opinion this week that said Davis was not violating House rules by virtue of his relationship with ICG, as long as he and his wife did not use his official title for personal gain. A closer examination of the relationship, however, seems to fit that definition exactly. Here’s a summary of the access that was provided to ICG by Davis by virtue of his position as Congressman and Chair of the Committee:

• The firm has arranged for clients seeking business with the federal government to meet personally with Davis in his office, as well as at dinners and receptions.

• The firm has arranged for its clients to testify before Davis’s committee, a move that the companies describe to the Post as a marketing strategy designed to boost their visibility on Capitol Hill and with government congracting officials.

• One one occasion, ICG helped a client write a threatening letter to the Pentagon when the Pentagon had put the client’s $2.2 billion satellite services contract under review for possible termination. The DoD had been considering scrapping the contract and giving it to larger companies to save money. That letter went out to the Pentagon bearing Davis’s signature and letterhead. The Pentagon later withdrew its review of the client’s contract and allowed the contract to continue as the best way to save taxpayer dollars.

• ICG openly touts its ties to the Congressman. ICG’s website used to tout Davis on its front page with a picture showing Davis and ICG’s banner in the background, although that picture has now apparently been removed. ICG is described by clients as “door openers” and “influence peddlers.”

• Devolitas Davis is listed on ICG’s website as a partner, though she claims she’s only a salaried employee.

• ICG sponsored seminars that put its clients on the stage next to Davis so they could appear as experts.

• ICG worked with Juniper Networks (whose identity was disclosed subsequent to the Post’s interview for the article) to make its CEO a “talking head” for technology issues on the Hill. Subsequent to that and after an informal “powwow” in the Congressman’s office after hours, the CEO appeared before Davis’s committee as an authority on teleworking during a bird flu epidemic. The CEO undoubtedly received the benefit of that appearance on a subsequent press release. “”It’s all about relationships and who you know,” said a marketing director for Juniper. “ICG knows what’s important to the congressman.” She also had the audacity to say that the hearing was part of a well-executed marketing plan for Juniper with expected deliverables, and that the hearing was one of those deliverables!

What benefits did Davis receive from this cozy relationship with ICG?

• ICG paid Davis’s wife (who is also a Virginia delegate) $78,000 last year to work primarily from home on her cell phone as a “consultant” for 10-20 hours a week.

• In the past five years since 9/11, Northern Virginia technology and telecommunications firms have been the greatest contributors of money to Davis’s and his wife’s campaigns and political action committees (his wife is a Virginia delegate for the Commonwealth’s General Assembly), donating a total of more than $1.1 million out of a total $6.4 million in their warchests. Since ICG has not registered as a lobbyist it need not disclose its clients, so it is not possible to ascertain how many of these technology firms are clients of ICG’s and therefore have special access to the Congressman in return for their contributions.

For its part, ICG claims of course that it is not using Davis’s wife for special access in any way, and assures the Post she is behaving ethically in every way and not personally lobbying Davis for anything related to ICG.

Even if Davis and his wife kept a strict wall between them regarding her business with ICG, and even if none of ICG’s clients have contributed to Davis’s campaigns, and even if he has done nothing else wrong (which remains to be seen), there is always a fallback House rule that members should avoid even the “appearance of impropriety.” That is, even if he is behaving ethically, a member of Congress should avoid engaging in behavior that raises negative questions about the possibility of improper influencing of the member. It seems clear that at a minimum Davis flunks this rule, because there seems something very rotten about this cozy relationship.

Finally, the Democrats are talking about what they will do if they come to power rather than what they won’t do. Sen. Clinton outlined the Democratic campaign agenda, called the American Dream Initiative, in a keynote speech for the Democratic Leadership Council. The key themes underlying the proposal are:

Every American should have the opportunity and responsibility to go to college and earn a degree, and to get the lifelong training they need.

Every worker should have the opportunity and responsibility to save for a secure retirement.

Every business should have the opportunity to grow and prosper in the strongest private economy on Earth, and the responsibility to equip workers with the same tools of success as management.

Every individual should have the opportunity and responsibility to start building wealth from day one, and the security and community that come from owning a home.

Every family should have the opportunity to afford health insurance for their children, and the responsibility to obtain it.

In order to expand opportunity for all Americans, we must demand a new ethic of responsibility from Washington: to put government’s priorities back in line with our values — and its books back in balance — by getting rid of wasteful corporate subsidies, unchecked bureaucracy, and narrow-interest loopholes; collecting taxes that are owed; clamping down on tens of billions of dollars in improper payments and no bid-contracts; and restoring commonsense budgeting principles like pay-as-you-go.

Proposals for obtaining these goals:

Education:

**Increase the number of college graduates by 1 million a year by 2015. Proposal includes $150 billion in block grants for states to ease sharply rising tuition costs, and will provide roughly $2000 per student.

**Simplify the tax code by consolidating various education tax breaks and credits into a single $3000 college tuition tax credit, which when combined with the state subsidy should make tuition nearly free at most typical four-year colleges.

**Make Pell grants available to part-time and adult education (25+ year old college) students.

Retirement

**Require every employer with more than 5 employees to provide a retirement plan (401k, etc.) that enrolls workers automatically, increases their contributions incrementally over time unless they opt out (many workers today don’t participate simply because they don’t know about the plan, or don’t know how to use it), and provides investment advice. Tax credits would be provided to employers to help them comply.

**Create a 50% match of up to $2000 per year match on retirement savings for working and middle-class families.

Economy/Jobs/Energy

**Create a smart energy policy that sets America on a road to eventual petroleum independence, which will further encourage the development of new jobs in blossoming industries like ethanol and wind power production.

**Create an energy fund that will provide research dollars to develop cutting edge energy efficient technologies, cellulosic ethanol (from plant waste), bio-diesel, plug-in hybrids and other high-mileage vehicles, etc. All of these areas are ripe for growth in the wake of high energy prices, and can create millions of new jobs and billions of dollars in exportable technology and industry.

Home Ownership

**Allow everyone who owns a home to claim the mortgage deduction even if they do not otherwise itemize deductions (as many working- and middle-class families do not).

**Create a $5000 down payment tax credit for families who need it.

**Increase FHA loan limit to 100% of an area’s median home price so that families in high-priced areas are not locked out of affordable FHA loans.

**Provide certain employers such as police, firefighters, teachers, etc. with a 50% tax credit for employee housing assistance programs, to better help these kinds of employees live in high-priced areas (an impossible feat for many of these essential workers in areas like New York and DC).

Healthcare

**Encourage the movement of records from paper to electronic form, with strict provisions in place to protect consumer privacy. This information-sharing would greatly increase efficiency and lower the cost of providing healthcare services.

**Allow small businesses to pool their workforces together to be able to negotiate for better and cheaper health insurance than individual small employers could obtain by themselves.

**Provide universal children’s health care by reauthorizing and increasing funds for the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, and by providing incentives to employers to cover the dependents of employees in their health plans.

**Promote healthier living (thus preventing expensive future health problems) by taking junk food out of schools, and by providing resources to community-based programs that encourage exercise, nutrition, healthy living, and the like.

**Create a National Center for Cures that targets and coordinates research dollars for finding cures to diseases like cancer, AIDS, and Alzheimer’s.

**Encourage further development of stem cell research.

**Strengthen Medicare by allowing the US Department of Health and Human Services to negotiate lower prices on behalf of Medicare beneficiaries.

_______________________

Overall it is a good and ambitious plan, and focuses on proposals in which both liberals and moderates in the Democratic Party can agree. My only “nitpick” is that I would like to see this plan condensed down to a few essential points that can be used in sound bytes and commercials over and over again to hammer the points home, just like the Republicans’ 1994 Contract with America. Democrats should also be prepared to provide greater detail as to how these provisions will be paid for at the same time that we attempt to return to “pay as you go” budgets.

The Senate is scheduled to take up the issue of stem cell research this week, the one thing that might be considered a “wedge issue” that greatly favors Democrats.

The House already passed a bill last year that would expand federal research to include stem cell lines from embryos destined for destruction by fertility clinics and programs. There would be no payment to donors.

The Senate will be considering several bills this week. Not only does the Senate seek to adopt essentially the House bills guidelines, but also seeks to encourage research into stem cell research that does not use embryos and also bans anyone from creating embryos solely for stem cell work. Both of these provisions seem reasonable, but the consideration of the issue at all is pitting the Congressional GOP against Bush, who has vowed to veto any stem cell legislation that exceeds the overly strict standards he imposed in 2001. The 2001 rule limited stem cell lines to those already existence on the date of the ruling, but too few of those lines are adequate for today’s research.

Unfortunately it is unlikely that Congress will muster sufficient votes to override the president’s veto, meaning the issue will likely play out in the 2006 and 2008 elections. David Broder reports on how the issue is being used in the Congressional campaigns, mostly by Democrats clubbing Republicans:

Stem cells are already an issue in several of the hottest Senate races. In Missouri, Republican Sen. Jim Talent was assailed by opponents of stem cell research when he announced he was withdrawing as a co-sponsor of restrictive legislation sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. Talent then came out against a November state referendum funding a stem cell research center, a measure backed by important parts of the Missouri business community and by his Democratic opponent, State Auditor Claire McCaskill. To highlight the issue, McCaskill gave the party’s national radio response to Bush yesterday.

The issue is also stirring in New Jersey, where Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez is in favor of research and state Sen. Thomas H. Kean Jr., his Republican opponent, says he favors embryonic stem cell research but has voted against such bills. And it is looming as an issue in Maryland, where Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, the Republican contender, created a fuss by comparing stem cell research to the experiments the Nazis conducted during the Holocaust.

In Tennessee, all three Republicans contending for the Senate seat that Frist is vacating in January have declared their opposition to the bill he has endorsed. Meanwhile, Rep. Harold Ford Jr., the certain Democratic nominee for the seat, voted for the bill when it passed the House.

In all these states and in the nation as a whole, polls show that public opinion supports expanded stem cell research.

Nancy Reagan is also actively involved in lobbying Congress for expanded research.

Bush’s opposition to the research makes him and his GOP allies on the issue look even more backwards than usual. It must be difficult to explain to paralyzed people, people in need of organ transplants, and the like as to why preserving embryos destined for the dumpster is more important than developing life-saving or -enhancing treatments for people in need. The rest of the population sees the obvious benefits of the research too, making Bush just look bad.

It is admittedly amusing to see Bush and some conservatives twisting in the wind with this issue in the same way they have often attacked Democrats with hot-button topics like abortion and gay marriage. At the end of the day, though, it is simply wrong for Bush to stand in the way of such important research, and his opposition makes his party more and more look like the party of the past.

While the idea sounds radical, there are an increasing number of scientists who believe that aging is nothing more than the long-term breakdown of essential biological processes. If that breakdown can be prevented, then aging would be slowed or stopped entirely.

The strongest proponent of this theory is longevity researcher Dr. Aubrey De Gray at Cambridge University. He proposes attacking aging as an engineering problem in his “Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence” (SENS), saying there are seven causes of aging that are potentially preventable. He is involved with The Methuselah Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated to raising public awareness of and researching various methods for slowing down or stopping the aging process.

Technology Review magazine took up the SENS issue, wondering why so many biogerontologists are publicly silent about SENS while privately deriding the idea. To that end, the magazine issued a challenge backed by a $20,000 prize, payable to anyone involved in the field who could submit an “intellectually serious argument that SENS is so wrong that it is unworthy of learned debate,” to be judged by a panel of independent and eminent experts (including J. Craig Venter, founder of Celera Genomics, the company that sequenced the human genome.)

The results were announced yesterday. Out of five contenders, three were found to be of true intellectual merit–and even those were unanimously judged to not have disproven the SENS theory. At the same time, the panelists made clear that SENS is more hypothesis than science at the present time–but the purpose of the contest was to eliminate derision of the theory, even if doubts over it remain.

Technology Review explains, quoting one of the judges:

“The scientific process requires evidence through independent experimentation or observation in order to accord credibility to a hypothesis. SENS is a collection of hypotheses that have mostly not been subjected to that process and thus cannot rise to the level of being scientifically verified. However, by the same token, the ideas of SENS have not been conclusively disproved. 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.

…

“We need to remember that all hypotheses go through a stage where one or a small number of investigators believe something and others raise doubts. The conventional wisdom is usually correct. But while most radical ideas are in fact wrong, it is a hallmark of the scientific process that it is fair about considering new propositions; every now and then, radical ideas turn out to be true. Indeed, these exceptions are often the most momentous discoveries in science.”

De Gray, who rebutted each of the three contenders (all of which can be found at the bottom of this page), had a more forceful response:

�The result of the TR SENS Challenge is a decisive rebuke to those gerontologists who have dismissed SENS as ‘unscientific’ and neglected to study it in detail. The Challenge judges forcefully and accurately describe SENS as a radical, necessarily speculative, but legitimate engineering proposal that merits fair consideration. SENS can of course be legitimately doubted, but it cannot now be legitimately derided�.

Time will soon tell whether SENS is true or not. If true, it will have huge ramifications for all of society and inevitably for politics. Should we extend life greatly, even if we could? What would that do to an already over-extended environment? Who would have access to the treatment? How would we deal with the tremendously negative impact on entitlement programs like Social Security? These would be questions for politicians to debate, but not dictate.