Talk:Aubrey de Grey

Irony

Anonymous user 210.187.136.223, congratulations, your editing tests have worked. Continue such tests, and, under the discretion of Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, your domain may be blocked. --Nectarflowed 23:57, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed the 7 symptoms into a numbered list... Looks clearer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.35.31 (talk • contribs)

Seven causes

Yeah, that looks better. However, the causes themselves are copied verbatim from the source. I can't tell if they are an excerpt from a paper of some sort by De Grey, as they are in a box next to the interview. Perhaps a rewording of each to avoid copyright infringement?

Could you please state the source for these "7 causes" in the article more clearly? It's not apparent from the article whether this is scientific consensus or a theory by de Grey.--Biologos 18:22, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have added "according to Aubrey de Grey" to the subheading, that should do the trick.--Biologos 21:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

These are not causes but categories of aging damage. De Grey believes that fixing all seven types of damage equals rejuvenation. It's not his list! The 7 types of damage are well known since over 20 years http://www.sens.org/just7.htm. What's important and specific to De Grey is that he states that all these are fixable. And by fixing all of them, not just a few we will be able to live in a near perfect condition (typical to a 20-25year old healthy human body ) as long as we wish, like vintage cars and machines. I'd suggest rewriting the paragraph. Also check Senescence#Reliability_theory Leba123 21:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

It is de Grey's list. The link http://www.sens.org/just7.htm is his webpage. Those types of damage have all been known for decades, sure, but it his idea, that by fixing these and only these 7, "we will be able to live in a near perfect condition". I have changed the subheading to "The seven types of aging damage, as proposed by de Grey". --Biologos 17:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The idea is, fixing those seven shall add 30 years to lifespan, and that those 30 years are enough time to improve the therapies, ad infinitum. 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Picture source

Three's a free picture source for him at [1], why was the original removed? --Procrastinating@^talk2me 14:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It is hard to document when the picture was removed, but this link [2] may indicate the reason if no one vouched for the file. I will see if I can handle it. --GirlForLife 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the file. The deletion log is here [3] and I am hoping that "fair use" is the right category [4] --GirlForLife 16:24, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of Aubrey de Grey's status at Cambridge

In the interests of accuracy I thought it would be useful to clarify that De Grey is neither a member of faculty at Cambridge University nor, as far as I can dtermine, any other university. I edited this article to this effect, including his current occupation and that his work in gerontology is on a part-time basis. It appears that these facts have been edited out from the article and I was wondering why. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.242.219 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I have been in personal e-mail communication with Aubrey de Grey concerning the accuracy of the information about him in this article, and this has been the basis of the corrections I have made. Aubrey no longer is associated with the Genetics Department (he was in charge of software development and not simply a technician), but he now devotes himself to biogeronotolgy on a full-time basis. The edit "information" by 130.63.242.219 was not only inaccurate and derogatory, but out-dated. --Ben Best 17:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You have it the wrong way about. He is no longer employed by the university, and so he IS now in full-time gerontolgoy, whereas previously his dayjob was computer work. 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The key point though, fanboys, is this: the article is very misleading, like much of the mainstream press, concerning de Grey's affiliation with Cambridge. He was not educated at Cambridge in biology (genetics, etc), and has never worked for Cambridge in the capacity of a biologist of any kind. He used to work for Cambridge as a computer guy, but now he doesn't work for Cambridge at all. Unless this is clarified, the article is inaccurate. June 15, 2008 --BK

It is stated very clearly exactly what education he received in the education section of the article, and exactly how his PhD was awarded. If you see any inaccuracies, please feel free to correct them. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 08:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 130.209.6.40

130.209.6.40 has deleted the information about Dr. de Grey's FlyBase responsibilities in the Genetics Department of Cambridge University for no good reason that I can see. This information clarifies much of the confusion some people have about Dr. de Grey's connection to Cambridge University. I have reverted this edit. 130.209.6.40 has also added a comment concerning Dr. de Grey being a researcher at CIRCA (Cambridge Interdisciplinary Research Centre on Aging). I have been in e-mail communication with Dr. de Grey about this and he tells me that CIRCA is an informal group at Cambridge to whom he has lectured, but he is not a researcher there or formally associated. Admittedly, the CIRCA website is misleading (Aubrey says that he will seek to have this corrected), so 130.209.6.40 cannot be blamed for making this misinterpretation. I am reverting that edit also, not with ill-will, but with a desire for accuracy. I hope that 130.209.6.40 will be understanding concerning this matter. --Ben Best 18:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Association with Cambridge

The reason for deleting the reference to Cambridge is that it is misleading. Were Dr. de Grey working and living in Stoke-on-Trent I very much doubt whether this information would be included. The prominent placement of Cambridge in the opening of the bio makes an association with Cambridge University, at which Dr. de Grey was a student and an employee. This work was in a non-faculty position and as a software developer the title of which seems less relevant than the fact that this was not in a research capacity relevant to gerontology. I am also having problems in identifying the nature of Dr. de Grey's PhD (or his masters, which is curisouly absent from the bio). The reference cited for this here is a web page for Cambridge University, but Trinity Hall appear to have no record of him being engaged in doctoral research there though they do say he was awarded his PhD from "Cambridge". Anyone have any information on this? The credibility of anyone's ideas rests to some extent on their qualifications and experience. Including irrelevant and potentially misleading information as to a scientist's status and past work would seem to be the kind of thing which a bio in general and a Wiki page in particular should seek to avoid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.63.242.219 (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

I believe the PhD was awarded for his body of work in biology; he did not write a thesis. As I understand it, Cambridge University often (or relatively often) awards these if a person has a degree of some sort from them.

Then you misunderstand it horrifically. Cambridge University most certainly does not often do this, making de Grey's case an exceptionally unusual one (I am not doubting it, just stating that it is highly unusual). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

At Cambridge (and Oxford, and the older Scottish universities) the first degree awarded is called a masters degree. However, in any case it is not unusual in England to have a PhD that one started immediately after the undergraduate degree without having done a masters year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.159.241 (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Rumors of having been fired from Cambridge

I have reverted an edit spreading the rumor that Dr. de Grey was fired from Cambridge and I quote Dr. de Grey's response below. --GirlForLife (talk) 10:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dr. de Grey's response to this rumor is as follows:

• I emphatically wasn't fired, nor even pushed: I left due to pressure of my other work, and even gave four months' notice.
• My use of the department's website for my SENS site was with the express written permission of my head of department, and Prof. Ashburner (the guy on the phone) always knew this.
• Though the work I was paid for had nothing to do with my aging work, my department always took credit for it (including my publications in its record of research), as did Prof. Ashburner (listing them in his grant applications as output of his group). They couldn't have done this if I hadn't been giving the department as my affiliation in my publications. Some people (especially Prof. Ashburner) found it easy to forget this when I started becoming controversial - but credit goes both ways.
• Interestingly, Prof. Ashburner was also the one who suggested I apply for a Ph.D. on the basis of my early work in aging. I think it's fair to say that if my work was good enough for Cambridge to give it that degree of endorsement then it was appropriate for others to see the work as such.
• It's certainly true that when I was unknown my affiliation was an advantage and I didn't take too much trouble to stop it from being so. But that's just riding one's luck, and I would like to know who doesn't do that.

This video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC_DMxxa4sM seems to suggest that this matter is not so clear-cut. It includes a short 'phone conversation with Prof. Ashburner.71.240.87.226 (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That there video is the reason the rumour got started in the first place. 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Public appearances

I do not doubt de Grey's notability. However, listing every recorded public appearance, including their running time to the second, seems extremely strange. As it happens, I am not a supporter, but this actually seems to demean his contributions rather than help his cause. Regardless, I question the notability of the appearances rather than his work and suggest they are deleted. To take an example from his prior place of employment, it would be extremely strange if on Mike Majerus' page his every public appearance were listed. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The list of media appearences -- lectures, etc -- is not just for the sake of a list, but a way of pointing to full versions of said lectures, etc. I agree though that the Saturday Morning TV interviews may be chucked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.144.19 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Independent verification

Do we have any source about this guy other than his own words and the Methusala Foundations? This whole think has the wif of viral marketing// internet echo chamber to it. Check out some of the MF video on U tube, quite dodgy I think Steve kap (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have attended many conferences with Aubrey, including Aubrey's own conferences, and I know many of his associates. He has made so many media appearances that I am somewhat amazed that anyone would question his credibility in the way that you have done. Aubrey de Grey is one of the most well-known biogerontologists in the world, rivaled only by Leonard Hayflick and Michael West. The external links and references in this entry are to bonafide websites. --Ben Best (talk) 23:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think by 'credibility' you mean 'notability'. His notability is not in doubt. His credibility very much is. Oddly, no one has yet to reply to my above comment that the huge list of Youtube links et al is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Anyone want to reply to this? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that you are confusing your POV with fact, but that is my POV. I think at least a few Youtube links should be included and would be of interest to people wanting to learn more about the man. Often a Youtube is worth many thousands of words. --Ben Best (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, that fact that you've gone to many conferences, and that he's had many media events, I think this argues more for "echo chamber" than "credible scientist". If he really had some great insight into aging, I think the media would come to him, you know, 'build a better mouse trap'... Steve kap (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

He can be verified. Firstly, there are official records of his degrees in the University of Cambridge library (as is the case for all graduates). They can be looked up. Secondly if you put his name into google scholar you will find peer reviewed material. These are the measures of verification for any scientist. It seems that you are suggesting that because his ideas have not yet revolutionised our lives, he must be a fake. What rubbish. Often original insight or knowledge anticipates application by a long way. And for what it is worth, before meeting de Grey I was very sceptical of his science and thought he was a bit eccentric. Having spoken to him I realise that he is a solid scientist with an original mind and plenty of courage. That people are so sceptical is probably because the magnitude of what he is suggesting challenges our ideas about what we are.

Proposed merger

I'm not convinced the Technology Review 'controversy' is notable on its own to justify its own article. Would it not be more sensible to merge it with this one under a heading of criticisms (a section that should exist on this page regardless). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no opinion either way, but I did add a small controversies section which mentions the controversy and links to it for more detail. If it is indeed merged in the future, it could be placed in this section. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 23:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm totally in favor of the merger. See also the opinions of others on the discussion page of the 'controversy' article.--Biologos (talk) 14:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose merger. At the time of this writing, De Grey Technology Review controversy is 9,325 bytes and Aubrey de Grey is 20,120 bytes. If merged, 32% of De Grey's article would consist of a single controversy in MIT review. That's far too much information on an event where the subject is not notable exclusively for that single event; in fact, it would threaten to turn the whole article into a WP:COATRACK. De Grey Technology Review controversy is a standard article spinout (see: WP:CFORK); article spinouts do not necessarily need to be notable in their own right (see, as a random example, Objects from The Lost Room, which is almost certainly not notable in its own right but, as a spinout, borrows its notability from The Lost Room) --SierraSciSPA (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

There needs to be some discussion of why he has such a long beard. I'm serious. There's gotta be a reason. Does he think it'll increase his lifespan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.244.192 (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Rather a good question: who knows? Extremely sexy (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

He has said that his wife likes a beard and long hair, and that this is the main reason for it. One positive aspect is the fact that it makes him stand out in a crowd. He is instantly recognized and readily remembered. This is very helpful in the context of the networking that he does in promoting SENS and organizing conferences. I think that negative first impressions associated with druggies and hippies are quickly dispelled for anyone who speaks with the man -- anyone with good sense (SENS?), anyway. --Ben Best (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Great to know then. Extremely sexy (talk) 16:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Gentleman scientist

Whence all this nonsense about de Grey being a "gentleman scientist" as if he had a large private income which he was dedicating to scientific research? True, Peter Thiel's endowment to the Methuselah Foundation has given de Grey a measure of freedom in funding experiments designed to prove SENS - but this notion of de Grey as a "gentleman scientist" strikes me as the mythologizing that swirls around the man. What is the source for the claim that he has a large private income? No one who has met de Grey over the last half decade could claim that there was any conspicuous sign of private wealth - indeed, rather the contrary. In the Channel 4 documentary of de Grey by Christopher Sykes there was a deeply fishy moment where de Grey "showed" Sykes his house in Kensington or Chelsea; but when Sykes visited his mother she was staying in geriatric home or council house, which de Grey explained away by saying the large London house was being remodeled.

I strongly suggest that unless there is a reference from a third-party about de Grey funding SENS research from his private income, we drop this business of the "gentleman scientist." De Grey's own self-description of himself as a lordling is not sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.17.3 (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "gentleman scientist" was added by anonymous user 81.132.81.166 on 6.14.2008. Unless any one has any strong objections, I will remove this farcical phrase tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.113.17.3 (talk • contribs) 2

I don't assume he's rich -- rather, just secure enough to have quit his dayjob and start on SENS full-time, even before the Thiel donation. Note that he's married to a career woman, so won't be on dole any time soon. And Kensington or Chelsea? Which is it? And why would he, as you hint, feel compelled to exaggerate his personal wealth, which most viewers would consider irrelevant? In science, do we really trust the rich more than those whose mothers have a small flats?

Image copyright problem with Image:Rejuvenation Research.jpg

The image Image:Rejuvenation Research.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page. This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --06:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Use of title "doctor" and full name

"Dr. Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey (born 20 April 1963 in London, England) is a British biomedical gerontologist."

Is it standard practice on Wikipedia to use the persons title, in this case, "Dr." in the name? Also, I'm wandering if it's necessary to use his full name "Aubrey David Nicholas Jasper de Grey" in the lead. He's usually called "Aubrey de Grey" in the media, and that's the name he uses generally. Thanks. --Green06 (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding academic titles, see WP:CREDENTIAL: Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Regarding the full name: [...]the subject's full name should be given in the lead paragraph, if known.--Biologos (talk) 10:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, certainly if you want to redirect stuff like Doctor Grey to this article then it would make sense, but while we can mention his titles, using them a lot just causes confusion. The shortest references possible 'Grey', 'Aubrey', make for much better flow. Tyciol (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

de Grey

This is a rather uncommon name isn't it? I am curious about the etymology of this. Also, it made me think of this anime DGray. Tyciol (talk) 21:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

de Grey as gerontologist

I changed the lead from gerontologist, but I'm happy to change it back if there's a good source for it. A gerontologist has been scientifically trained and has earned a PhD after a course of original research; it seems from the sources that de Grey was given a PhD for a speculative book he wrote, and I'm not sure how this makes him a gerontologist. I could very well be wrong about this, and I'm certainly not attacking de Grey, so please help out if you have decent sources. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Only copying what Marainein wrote:: A search of pubmed with de Grey AD [au] NOT "Rejuvenation Res."[Journal] shows 48 publications NOT including those in his own journal - if peer reviewed journals consider him to be a scientist, then I would suggest it's not for us to overrule them, and decide that he's not. Marainein (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Talgalili (talk • contribs)

edits by Dr. de Grey, January 27th 2010

I made some minor changes an hour ago to this page, which is about me. I'm slightly surprised that they have been reverted without any stated justification other than that they were made by me; however, I am not an expert on Wikipedia protocol, so I defer to those who are. In any event: the changes I made were all trivial and (as far as I can tell) uncontroversial, other than an addition to the opening paragraph, which at the encouragement of "Keepcalmandcarryon" I now explain.

The paragraph as currently written states that "the" scientific communit is skeptical of SENS. This assertion is backed by one reference, but my response to that article is not referenced. Moreover, the public endorsement of SENS by the 15 members of SENS Foundation's research advisory board, who are unequivocally just as credentialed in appropriate disciplines as the authors of the "skeptical" article, is not mentioned. The text that I wrote in order to clarify this is as follows:

However, de Grey has responded that this merely reveals a serious gap of understanding between basic scientists and technologists and between biologists studying aging and those studying regenerative medicine, and the 15-member Research Advisory Board of SENS Foundation have signed an endorsement of the plausibility of the SENS approach. Thus, SENS remains a contentious concept among appropriately credentialed scientists.

If "Keepcalmandcarryon" (or anyone else) sees an actual conflict of interest here, or indeed any reason why this is not a reasonable edit to the page, I woud be grateful if they could provide it.

I hope that my sentiments reflect those of other editors when I state that your participation in the project is appreciated. I look forward to working with you to improve this article. Previously, I directed you to our conflict of interest policy, which states that users should "avoid, or exercise great caution" when "Editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with". Edits an involved individual deems minor and accurate may not always be minor from the perspective of uninvolved editors. Our interest is to represent the subject accurately and fairly, i.e., from a neutral point of view.

You and other involved editors are certainly welcome and even encouraged to help the Wikipedia community improve articles related to you. You have already taken the laudable step of identifying yourself honestly as the subject. I would strongly encourage you to demonstrate your commitment to improving Wikipedia and establishing good faith by:

• voluntarily reverting back to the pre-existing biography version pending talk page discussion;
• agreeing not to edit this or other related articles directly, or at least not without prior talk page discussion;
• considering account creation to facilitate transparency and communication with other editors.

That said, you're not at all obligated to follow my advice. The Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard is one resource for anyone with questions about specific conflict of interest situations. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for advice from other users at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Aubrey_de_Grey. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Keepcalmandcarryon, for the protocol, I find Aubrey's addition to be in place and one that adds to the NPOV of the article. That said, I also agree with the rule that he should be very careful about his edits to his own articles.:: Would you be willing to propose a revisit to his revision that you would agree to as being a proper addition to the article? (since his sources are valid and should, IMHO, be included) Talgalili (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest tag

I've added a conflict of interest tag, as an IP editor claiming to be de Grey has edited the article (and again, [5]) and the talk page. We have no way to verify this individual's identity, but the claim is probably sufficient. Subjects of articles and those closely associated with the subject are encouraged to discuss proposed changes on the talk page; if agreed, another editor can perform the edits.

As far as the validity of the IP editor's changes, the views of de Grey's associates should not be confused with those of the scientific community in general, although they could be mentioned in the article, preferably with third-party sourcing. de Grey's views appear to be high-profile (in a public relations sense) but also decidedly fringe, and, as previously discussed on this page, de Grey does not appear to be a scientist himself (the most recent request for clarification of this point has not been answered). In any case, de Grey's publication record, with most of his publications appearing in his own journal, Rejuvenation Research, appears to be that of a philosopher/theoretician of aging and not of an experimental scientist. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A search of pubmed with de Grey AD [au] NOT "Rejuvenation Res."[Journal] shows 48 publications NOT including those in his own journal - if peer reviewed journals consider him to be a scientist, then I would suggest it's not for us to overrule them, and decide that he's not. Marainein (talk) 01:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Marainein - thank you for bringing this information. Talgalili (talk) 08:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone -this is Dr. de Grey. I am disappointed that after a period of several days of apparent acceptance of my edits by everyone here, "Keepcalmandcarryon" chose to revert my edits without letting me know he/she had done so, despite my having publicised my email address during this discussion. I do not know the Wikipedia protocol on such matters, but this certainly seems underhand to me. As to the new comments here: (1) the cited "request" does not appear to request clarification of whether I am a scientist, but rather whether I am a gerontologist, and it is well known that many very prominent scientists, including biologists (Francis Crick, for example) do/did not do experimental work. Tom Kirkwood, who has been a prominent gerontologist for far longer than me and who I doubt anyone would deny is a gerontologist, obtained his PhD by exactly the same mechanism as I did and for equally theoretical work. (2) The fact that I publish an editorial in each issue of the journal I edit is a curious fact to use as evidence to diminish the significance of my peer-reviewed work, and I thank "Marainein" for noting that. (3) The idea that the SENSF board is somehow distinct from the coientific community is a slur on everyone concerned. "Keepcalmandcarryon" is well aware that the members of the SENSF board are members of the scientific community just as credentialed as any of my detractors. They are my associates because I respect their authority and chose to invite them to join SENSF's advisory board and they accepted. Their alignment with SENSF's and my work is thus prima facie evidence that SENS is not "fringe" at all. (4) I think it particularly odd that "Keepcalmandcarryon" wpould add a "CoI" tag to the article while at the same time deleting the only contribution I have made (which was in the first place not remotely major). All in all, I think it is beholden on "Keepcalmandcarryon" to declare his/her own interest in perpetuating anti-de Grey bias in this article. I would welcome others' comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.4 (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have no bias and I have no interest to declare, except perhaps for the following: I simply don't wish to see Wikipedia become another advertising arm for an immortality group's social agenda, and particularly not when the head of that group is openly editing the article. The COI tag is meant to alert readers to the fact that the subject has had a history of editing the article. We're not here to debate whether the subject is or is not a legitimate scientist, and it appears the subject has declined in any case to answer the straightforward question about his degree. Nor are we here to debate whether "SENS" is a legitimate scientific foundation: what's clear is that its board members, credentialed or no, are as conflicted as Aubrey de Grey in their opinions and we should look elsewhere for the scientific view of impending immortality. Per WP:FRINGE, we probably don't even need a source to declare this notion fanciful. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear. (1) The CoI tag describes "A major contributor to this article", not "A minor contributor to a previous version of this article". Any suggestion to the contrary is an attempt to mislead. (2) I don't know whether we're here to debate whether I'm a legitimate scientist, but it's curious that you now say we aren't when that is precisely one of the things you've been debating hitherto. Another attempt to mislead. (3) I have fully answered every question about my degree - so fully that you are again misleading those here by suggesting that I haven't. The information about my degree on the page is thorough and correct (last I looked...). (4) Your logic concerning advisors seems to be that as soon as a credentialed scientist declares his/her support for SENS by accepting a SAB invitation, they become "conflicted" and their credentialed opinion becomes irrelevant, whereas when someone does the opposite and publicly criticises SENS they should be respected. If that's a NPOV, I'd like to know what isn't. In conclusion: I would like to hear what evidence or statements by other Wikipedia editors or contributors WOULD convince you to accept the edits that have been accepted by every other contributor to this debate. Well? I remind you that you began two weeks ago by satying "I don't wish to be a bully"... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.183.140.4 (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon, I reverted your edits, and I'd like to see more discussion and consensus here on the talk page before you revert again. I am entirely unconvinced by the quite frankly bizarre claim that the credentialed experts on the board of Mr. De Gray's foundation don't "count" towards respectability since they are "conflicted". Conflicted in that they endorse his work? It makes no sense. Also, be very careful that you are not edging into uncivil personal attack by hinting darkly about his bona fides as a scientist - he has a Phd from Cambridge University based on "The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging"!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I withdraw all of my comments on Dr. de Grey and his theories, apologise for any unintended offense and emphasise that I do not question the credentials of de Grey or any of the SENSF or Methuselah Foundation board members. I will also, on request, revert any past edits with which Dr. de Grey disagrees or which Mr. Wales finds unacceptable. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a bit much, Keepcalm. The fact of the matter is that the criticism directed at this man's work is considerable and not lightly dismissed. As it is right now, the article reads more as a paen than as a neutral exposition of this particular person's theories and how they dovetail with the mainstream (which is the way Wikipedia should treat the matter, right?) ScienceApologist (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that deleting any acknowlegment of Dr. de Grey's existence is going too far. There are many authorities that recognize the validity of his claims along with those who are critics. He deserves respect and acknowlegement. I think that Keepcalmandcarryon should unrevert this reversion [6] that he made on the 15th of November, 2009. --Ben Best (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ben, thank you for the suggestion. I have done so, and have also changed the header from "Theoretical combination strategies" to "Combination strategies". If I recall correctly, this may have been entitled SENS at one time, and I will gladly change this again at your suggestion. Please feel free to suggest any additional changes, as I'm aware you know Dr. de Grey well and have written extensively on him. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

COi, is an essay, it is not big deal, there appears to be a lot of opinionated discussion here on the talk page, wikipedia is not an excuse to assert negatively on people that would intellectually eclipse us. Off2riorob (talk) 21:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right, and I'm certainly gratified that you happened by to chastise me. I freely acknowledge Aubrey de Grey as my intellectual superior. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you're going overboard now. There's no need for anyone to acknoledge that anyone else is their intellectual superior. It's not relevent. Hipocrite (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Dr. de Grey again. Thanks to everyone for the recent edits. I see only two errors - I hope someone else will please correct them, since it is evidently so inadvisable for me to do so. First, I was born and brought up in London, not Cambridge. Second, the Methuselah Mouse Prize is not an award bestowed on me, but a competition run by the Methuselah Foundation, an organisation I co-founded. --212.183.140.22 (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dr Grey, if that is who you are :¬)

Unfotunately I cannot find anything on the site of the Methuselah Foundation to confirm that Dr Grey is a co-founder of the Methuselah foundation. All I can find is that the Founder was Dave Gobel [7], although on this page it states he is the co-founder [8], and that Dr Grey is on the Mprize board.Mprize Scientific Advisory Board

I also can see that he was a major donator in 2005-01-16 [9]
The newsletters have him listed differently, of Issue 1 December 20007 as
Aubrey de Grey
Methuselah Foundation,
and of March 2008 as
"Aubrey de Grey
Chairman and CSO, Methuselah Foundation"

Is it possible for you to point us to reliable sources, as it is becoming problematic at the moment.

It does seem that Dr Grey was not a winner of the Mprize (the current name of the Mouse prize) and is in fact on the board of advisors. I will edit to show this. Chaosdruid (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Third-party secondary sources needed

Currently, the article consists almost entirely of primary sources written by affiliates. I direct all interested to WP:PSTS and hope that we can locate some sources which discuss this subject with objectivity and dispassion. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, this article seems to be a puff piece reminiscent of the Sheldrake article. It needs a through review and improvements, and tags should remain until these issues are addressed and the review is complete. Verbal chat 21:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What alternative sources would you recommend which are not just counter-puffpieces? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.97.89 (talk) 08:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

A glitch in the image at the bottom of the article

I see an image floating over the reference, can any one fix it please ? (I don't know how) Talgalili (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't a great image, and SV has removed it anyway. What browser and OS are you using? Verbal chat

Win XP + Chrome Talgalili (talk) 14:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling

I think we should spell this "aging" throughout, as that's how he spells it in the title of both his books. It might look a bit odd if we introduce a different spelling. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 17:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stick to British english, as the subject is British and works in a British institute. Verbal chat 21:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Aging is written in the UK too (e.g. London Times [10], second paragraph), even if ageing is more common. I see internal consistency as the main issue. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 21:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Zahid Hussain in Islamabad. Verbal chat 22:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it matters where the author is. The Times used aging. Some of the British/American spelling and style distinctions that Wikipedians make aren't correct. This is one example where rigidity is not a good idea because both are fine. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 22:43, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is Dr. de Grey. I know my preference has little weight, but for the record, I prefer "aging".

You're right. This is a UK article and should stick to UK spelling to be consistent. de Grey, please get an account if you're going to comment a lot, thanks. Do you always insist on your title? I don't myself, but then I do work in France. Verbal chat 22:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Verbal - seeing what attacks he just received for the legitimacy of his degree/academic status - I can't say I am surprised that he makes sure to state his credentials using his title. Talgalili (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr. de Grey's preference actually does have some weight in this case. I quote from WP:ENGVAR: In a biographical or critical article, it may be best to use the subject's own variety of English (where there is a definite preference), especially if the author's writings are quoted in the article. I think to interpret this as "He has a British passport, therefore we use the spelling variant more common in the UK" is a misinterpretation. The point is to use the same spelling the subject of the article uses, irrespective of nationality. Since no other guideline is in conflict with using "aging" etc., we can and probably should use the spelling variant he uses. And with the present article, WP:RETAIN and keeping internal consistency are an issue, but not WP:TIES (strong national ties). --Biologos (talk) 08:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Italics

Try not to go overboard. NineNineTwoThreeSix (talk) 02:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll do my best. Verbal chat 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is standard to italicise scholarly journal and newspaper titles in articles. I'd think the italics should be put back in. Fences&Windows 19:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The EMBO Reports article('Science fact and the SENS agenda') - Review vs Viewpoint

EMBO Reports has separate sections for 'Viewpoints' and 'Reviews' (as well as 'Correspondence', 'Analysis' etc). There are a number of reasons why the article should be considered an viewpoint and not a review (style, bias, lack of references, lack of technical details etc). The most important ones in the context of wikipedia are: 1) The editorial staff of a peer reviewed journal chose to place it in the viewpoints section, not the reviews section. 2) It is never referred to as a review by the authors, or anywhere else in the journal. In fact the only place I could find it called a review was in that sentence on wikipedia...

The full text of that issue of EMBO Reports is freely available here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/issues/127576/

I request that anyone changing the wording back to 'review' provide some sort of source as justification. Marainein (talk) 23:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

aging vs ageing

What's the policy on using "aging" vs "ageing"? The spellings get equal time? I notice that publication titles seem to mostly use "Aging". The bibliography tends to use "aging". And the general narrative tends to use "ageing". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.239.45.4 (talk) 02:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The subject is British, hence we use British spelling except in names and tiles that have opted for the American variation. Verbal chat 09:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aubrey_de_Grey#Spelling . WP:ENGVAR, quoted as reference for all changes from "aging" to "ageing", actually does not say that British spelling should be used with British subjects.--Biologos (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

His variety of English is British, that he uses American variants for some words doesn't change that. Verbal chat 09:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)