X-Message-Number: 23663 From: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <> Subject: Re: Correction Warranted in #23607 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 02:47:09 -0700 I had considered my last message to be my final statements on this matter. However, I will not let this most recent post from Aubrey go without reply. > Message #23647 > Subject: Re: Correction Warranted in #23607 > From: Aubrey de Grey <> > Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2004 12:27:47 +0000 > > Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote: <snip> > > 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. Aubrey is once again distorting my statements and intentions - and I can only conclude now that he is doing so purposely. Except in a few cases (eg. use of "professor" in CryoNet Msg 23445 announcement of the VP Summit 2004), there was no intent to place "blame" on anyone who innocently used Aubrey's self-bio or employment department name as the source of their description of him, but on Aubrey himself for not providing complete and unambiguous information in the first place. Aubrey continues on in his message to twist my definition of computer scientist ("researches and develops computer hardware and or software" and more recently "a scientist who specializes in the theory of computation and the design of computers") into the inference that I negated that he did any research in biogerontology. I have never in any place at any time stated that Aubrey does not do research in biogerontology. But such work is/was not *for* Cambridge University, as my previous posts have made very clear (and his supervisor confirmed). He has chosen rather to distort my words and to then express being mystified as to why I (and likely anyone) would find the misuse of information about his employment position a serious matter. It is not so much among biogerontologists and other supporting scientists that I consider the misleading/false/incomplete education and employment information regarding Aubrey de Grey to be a real concern. They - like some of the more scientifically astute readers on sci.life-extension - will likely have read Aubrey's book and papers, and know the value of the science presented, even if they don't agree entirely with every aspect. Although they might also be under the false impression that all of that work was done as part of an affiliation with the Department of Genetics at Cambridge University, since all his papers state that. Instead, my concern is for the vast majority of less scientifically knowledgeable people to whom he is now reaching out via the Internet, in the mass media, and with personal appearances, who will not have read those papers - or if they did, will not be able to understand them. It is those people who have no other recourse but to make evaluations and decisions largely based on the number and level of degrees after someone's name, where the person is employed, and/or someone else's opinion of the person. <snip> > 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). Since Aubrey has maintained precisely the same job title and paid work since well before he received his Ph.D., and he does do not do the biogerontological research work related to his Ph.D. (both before and since receiving it) *for* Cambridge working under any faculty member there, as Michael Ashburner has now verified, it is once again incorrect and misleading for Aubrey to say that he is a "post-doctoral research fellow". > 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. The "impression" that Aubrey has given and even continues to support by many of his own words on the Internet (and likely in person) is that he is employed by Cambridge University *for* his "work" in biogerontology. The fact that this is false *is* serious. Aubrey is not employed at Cambridge University as a biogerontologist; his supervisor has confirmed that. There is nothing "accurate" about the "impression given" when it is a falsehood - that he is a professor or that the biogerontological "work" that is Aubrey's passion is what Cambridge University pays him to do. Those truly knowledgeable about the contents of Aubrey's scientific contributions in biogerontology likely care little that this was not done as part of his employment at Cambridge University. The fact that his biogerontological work is all on his own time (outside of his position as "computer scientist" as his supervisor states) is unique, highly noteworthy and should impressively stand on its own. There is no reason why this fact should be concealed or avoided. Frankly, it is what gave both Paul and me high admiration for Aubrey's enormous dedication and passion, right from the start. As a reminder, Aubrey acknowledged in Post #23615 that he was not a professor. (> He is also not on the faculty at Cambridge and therefore not a professor. This is quite correct;) A professor teaches (professes) to students (undergraduate and/or graduate) as a faculty member of a university and usually does research and supervises graduate students and post-docs as well. Sometimes, a more senior professor or one particularly valuable for research may not have any required course work. (And Aubrey certainly could not be both a "post-doctoral fellow", as he has now attempted to claim, and a professor at the same time. But of course Aubrey is in fact neither.) Moreover, using shortcuts ("professor" vs "computer associate" ?shorter?) is totally unnecessary and *does* mislead, and again they do not relate at all to the true situation in which Aubrey's "work" (biogerontological) is actually performed. Once the actual facts of Aubrey's employment position vs. his "work" becomes known, for instance to a typical non-scientifically knowledgeable reader of a life-extension promotional article - who understandably thought otherwise from the "impression" given - it would not be surprising if other statements made by Aubrey (and even his supporters) were questioned regarding their veracity. Why would someone such as Aubrey want to mislead or leave others with a wrong impression? Possibly because in an attempt to persuade large numbers of people, increasingly those who have political sway, certain titles or employment positions have been found to open doors (or possibly just faster) and in other ways get attention where others might just be ignored. It is this ethical cutting of corners that I contend is wrong (particularly when used for fundraising or other promotional purposes) and for which there is even no pragmatic (practical) reason. The fact of Aubrey's independent literature research and novel theoretical approaches in the field of biogerontology can and should be made a focused point, not one to be avoided and covered over by incorrect impressions of biogerontological research performed under the auspices of Cambridge University. What could be viewed as an obsession with titles and credentials by many in the general public should not be catered to, but instead corrected while informing them of current and near-term scientific advances in anti-aging/life-extension research. <snip> > It seems as though the letter matters to > you more than the spirit, and I find that very odd. To use his own term, Aubrey does seem "dim" in his inability (or maybe it is refusal) to recognize a matter of ethics - the true "spirit" of this and other matters. There is nothing "odd" about recognizing that it matters a great deal what methods one uses to promote one's ideas, even when those ideas are as desirable to many of us as finding ways to stop aging - or defending the availability and usage of cryonics. I provided my initial corrections, one of which has been shown to be incorrect and verified by Aubrey's supervisor - that he has a Ph.D. in gerontology - merely to help make sure that he was referred to properly in regard to degree subject, job title and situation in which his biogerontological work was done. All that Aubrey needed to have done, and I actually thought he would do, was to acknowledge that his biogerontological work was private and separate from his employment at Cambridge and correct his online bio to make that completely clear. The fact that he has not done so and instead defends his practice of misleading "impressions" leads me to conclude that he has done this all purposefully - that he has intentionally given this "impression" so as to ride on the coattails of Cambridge University instead of correctly and proudly stating his status as an independent and private biogerontologist. This entire exchange has been quite revealing to me and something I never expected with my very first message. It has also been very disappointing to realize that someone I thought highly of does not see the need to be complete and unambiguous in his descriptions of the relationship between his "work" and his employment. **Kitty Antonik Wakfer MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org Rational freedom by self-sovereignty & social contracting Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=23663