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