X-Message-Number: 23647
Subject: Re: Correction Warranted in #23607
From: Aubrey de Grey <>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:27:47 +0000

Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote:

> Note: My original title for this message used the word "warranted" not
> "wanted".
> However the change was made, I have now reversed it in order to prevent
> distortion of my intent.

My apologies for this - I genuinely misread it when I typed the Subject.

> There has been no "curious failure" on my part to check facts with
> "anyone who would know them". As I show below, anyone "who would know
> them", except Aubrey de Grey, appears to know many of the "facts"
> incorrectly.

I would, indeed, have thought that I was the ideal candidate with whom
to have checked said facts.  However, plenty of other people know them.

> My apologies to Aubrey de Grey that his Ph.D. is for work in
> biogerontology only received in 2000.

Thank you.  You appear, however, to overlook the point that your "quite
understandable" error is no more understandable, and no less blameworthy,
than the error of those who describe me as a geneticist on account of the
name of my department, a computer scientist on account of my job title,
etc.  Namely, perfectly understandable and not blameworthy at all.  If we
all considered it a high priority to correct all such errors, we would do
little else.  The quickest way for me to stop people inaccurately calling
me "Dr. de Grey" was to get a Ph.D., to be perfectly honest.  I only took
the trouble to correct your message because of its conclusion (see below).

> since Aubrey's position at Cambridge is as a computer user and
> programmer to develop and maintain the Drosophila database, even the
> term computer scientist is misleading because it implies that he
> researches and develops computer hardware and or software.

Whether I do research for FlyBase is a matter of definition -- indeed,
some would say that I don't do research in gerontology because I don't
do experiments.  The common-sense definition of research would exclude
bioinformatics projects for the research community, such as FlyBase,
but the standard academic definition does not exclude them, as is shown
by the facts that I am paid off a grant from the National Human Genome
*Research* Institute, FlyBase publishes annual updates on itself in the
well-known journal Nucleic Acids *Research*, and my colleagues on the
FlyBase project in Cambridge who are not fortunate enough to qualify as
computer associates are known simply as *research* associates, despite
not doing original/novel work any more than I do.

The main reason why I have taken the trouble to write all this, however,
is that your conclusion both in this message and in your earlier one is
that the impression of the authority of my views and statements on the
biology of aging and how to cure it is "inflated" or "exaggerated" by,
especially, calling me a professor (in the US sense).  The authority of
my views is most accurately indicated not by when and for what I got my
various degrees, but by my record of publications (which is linked at
the bottom of my bio page to which you refer).  The extent of my first-
author publication record in learned peer-reviewed journals compares
favourably with most University faculty of my age and greatly exceeds
that of a typical post-doctoral research fellow (which is what I
strictly am).  Thus, though terminologically incorrect, it is actually
a great deal more accurate in terms of the impression given to the
listener to describe me as a professor when one is constrained to use
just a couple of words than to call me a research associate, computer
associate, etc.  Thus, your repeated assertions that such descriptions
inflate or exaggerate my standing in mainstream gerontology are without
foundation.  Since you acknowledge this by your descriptions of my work
as "very important", etc., I remain mystified as to why you regard this
matter as so serious.  I agree with your statement that:

> it is essential that individuals, especially those in prominence,
> should be forthright in their statements, including descriptions of
> themselves and others, even to the point of possibly erring on the
> side of understatement

but the degree of understatement that you seem to be recommending in
my case would make it virtually impossible for my views to be heard
beyond mainstream academia.  It seems as though the letter matters to
you more than the spirit, and I find that very odd.

Aubrey de Grey

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23647