X-Message-Number: 5081
Date: 31 Oct 95 14::05 EST
From: Saul Kent <>
Subject: Technological Progress

	Keith Lynch wrote  that: "Another major risk is that general
technological progress will be slowed by government red tape..."
	This is far more than a "risk", it is a reality...a very sad reality!
	Perhaps the most damaging type of "red tape" that the U.S. Food & Drug
Administration (FDA) uses to slow progress in the United States is applied so
unconsiously and so insidiously  that it might better be termed "transparent
tape".
	The idea of anti-aging research is beyond the pale of the conceptual

framework the FDA operates under.  The FDA has no protocol to approve anti-aging
drugs (or therapies), no idea whatever what such a protocol should entail, and
no apparent interest in developing such a protocol. 
	In fact, the last time I checked, the FDA had yet to agree on a protocol
to approve drugs to treat Alzheimer's Disease, even though they've already
approved a couple of drugs for that purpose and have about 16 others in their
regulatory pipeline.  
	The result is that little anti-aging research is being conducted by
pharmaceutical companies and what research is being done (by companies such as
Geron) is being done ostensibly to treat specific diseases, not aging.
	Another related problem is that, because the prevailing model for
biomedical research is to test one therapeutic agent at a time, and because the

FDA almost never deviates from orthodoxy, the agency discourages the development
of multi-modal therapies which have been shown to be superior to single
therapies in many areas including cancer chemotherapy and preventive medicine.
	Many years ago, Jerry White (now in cryopreservation) told me  he was
against all government-sponsored scientific research.  At the time, I disagreed
with Jerry on the pragmatic grounds that, since the government takes so much of
our money, it's better that they spend it on biomedical research than on other
more wasteful pursuits.  
	My second argument in favor of government-sponsored biomedical research
was that a good deal of  useful research has been conducted with government
money.
	My third argument was that I thought the government is more likely (than
private companies) to fund the kind of basic, fundamental research that is
necessary in many cases to develop new therapies.
	I now agree with Jerry.  I now believe it would best if government were
to get out of the research business *and* the regulation of medicine entirely.

I now believe that the good that comes out of government control of research and
medicine is greatly outweighed by the damage that it does.  
	One of the negative consequences of government-sponsored research is the
kind of paralyzing  fear and dependency it instills in scientists, and the loss
of creativity that results from their lack of independence.
	I now believe that the requisite basic research would  be adquately
funded privately if there was no government-sponsored research.  I now believe

that, if the government would leave enterprising immortalists such as me (and my
partner Bill Faloon) alone, we would personally fund the research needed to
achieve physical immortality in the foreseeable future.

---Saul Kent


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5081