X-Message-Number: 23682
From: "Kitty Antonik Wakfer" <>
Subject: Re: Correction Warranted in #23607
Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 02:16:26 -0700

With this most recent message, Aubrey has opened 2 areas that I had no
intention of addressing. However since he has done
so I will necessarily reply to those; and I will also reply to distortions
made to my previous message. (I realized in creating this current reply that
I had been referring to the University of Cambridge as Cambridge University.
My apologies to Aubrey and anyone else I might have offended by doing so -
at least it's not as serious as mistakenly referring to the University of
Arizona as Arizona State University ;>)

> Message #23665
> Subject: Re: Correction Waranted in #23607
> From: Aubrey de Grey <>
> Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 12:51:32 +0000
>
> Kitty Antonik Wakfer wrote:
>
> > Aubrey is once again distorting my statements and intentions - and I
> > can only conclude now that he is doing so purposely.
>
> I will not rise to this; I will only point out that your latest posting
> is remarkably at variance with your previous one, in which you accepted
> that it is indeed entirely appropriate for my FlyBase work to be called
> "research", and thus for me to be called a computer scientist or a post-
> doctoral research fellow.

There is no variance between what I said I in messages #23663 and #23641.  I
never stated that I consider it appropriate to refer to Aubrey's FlyBase
work (maintenance of the drosophila database) as "research".  Even if by
some stretch of the definition of the word "research" someone wants to use
that word, it still is not *the* biogerontological (theoretical) research
work that Aubrey does, which has seen publication, and for which he is
well-known and highly esteemed in that community.

As for my accepting the designation "computer scientist" for him, I accept
only that his supervisor considers him so and therefore will not fault
anyone who uses this title for him, though I still do not consider the work
he is doing for FlyBase to be in the realm of work that a computer
*scientist* does, and I will not, personally, use that description for him.
As for being a post-doctoral research fellow, Aubrey's assertion that I
accepted this description of him is ludicrous, as I specifically rejected
this notion in my previous post:
"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"."


>
> > 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.
>
> Indeed.  As has already been established, we agree that they have more
> representative information (to wit, my publications).

My guarded agreement is what I said 2 sentences later and is not to be
summarily dismissed:
"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 ... 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.
>
> And on my publication record (number of entries in PubMed, for example,
> which can be determined without having the expertise to understand my
> work).  But I've said that already....

The number of PubMed entries for a person is hardly a way to verify the
value of those entries.  Even unrefereed submissions to some journals and
letters to the editor of others will result in a PubMed entry, though I am
not suggesting that any of Aubrey's necessarily fall into these categories.
The point is that quantity does not equal or infer quality. In addition, few
people who have little or no expertise to understand PubMed abstracts even
know how to access it. (Readers of MoreLife, however, are provided with an
explanation of the value of PubMed and a link to it from our Links Index.)


> > Moreover, using shortcuts ("professor" vs "computer associate"
> > ?shorter?) is totally unnecessary
>
> Rep. Downing didn't seem to think so.  Here's a straight question for
> you, which might bear a straight answer: Do you think that the other
> representatives' impression of my standing within mainstream gerontology
> was made more accurate or less accurate by their being told that I am
> a research associate and not a professor, and being told nothing else?
> Your oversight of the fact that the truth was used to mislead the House
> is surprising.

I made no oversight in my response post to the original message #23607. I
simply pointed out that both descriptions of Aubrey de Grey, "research
associate" and "professor", were not in accord with the facts. I do not know
exactly how the introduction of Aubrey was made to the AZ legislators to
which he is referring and it matters only that it should have been factual
and unambiguous (particularly since legislators being masters of subterfuge,
misrepresentation and spin are not likely to be fooled - it is now apparent
that at least some of them were not). And by the way, the clear insinuation
that I don't give straight answers is not appreciated and its implication is
certainly not true. Finally, I have no understanding of the meaning of your
last sentence above, because "truth" can not mislead; only falsehoods,
ambiguity and incompleteness can mislead.

To illustrate how Aubrey could honestly and effectively be introduced, I
will use as an example the introduction Aubrey wrote for himself to Rep
Aguirre posted at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConsideringCryonics/message/469
"I am a research scientist working on the biology of mammalian aging at the
University of Cambridge in England. My specific focus is on the development
of techniques to repair and reverse the age-related degenerative changes
that accumulate during life and eventually kills."

In order to be correct, clear and unambiguous, I would suggest that Aubrey's
message (and any verbal introduction) be reworded as follows:
"I am a computer associate in the Department of Genetics at the University
of Cambridge and an independent research scientist for the past 10(?) years
in the area of mammalian aging. The specific focus of my independent
research is on the development....."
If Aubrey also has the express permission to use the facilities of the
University of Cambridge for his private research (which permission I presume
he does have), it would be appropriate and correct to include the following.
"My independent research work has the approval of the University of
Cambridge which permits me the use of its numerous facilities including its
website which houses the [whatever name Aubrey then refers to the "home" of
his "work"]."

The message should then be signed *not* using the address of the University
of Cambridge (since it is not about the work that Aubrey does as an employee
of the University of Cambridge that he is writing or speaking), but with a
"company" or organization name that Aubrey designates as the location of his
independent biogerontological work.  Possibly the Institute of Biomedical
Gerontology as described by Aubrey at
http://www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/IBGcase.htm would be the appropriate
organization, with its own postal and e-mail addresses and website URL
separate from the University of Cambridge.

While this might not have the currently desired pizzazz or aura that goes
along with writing or saying  "biogerontologist at the University of
Cambridge in England" and is different from what many are used to hearing
about research locations, it is factually correct. Also, it can be enlarged
on to demonstrate Aubrey's independence of thought and judgment, open to
evaluation by his peers but not open to the typical political influence
which is often exerted on those in academia. The fact that it *is*
different, and that such difference is stated without any apology in tone
for it, can be quite impressive.

The entire subject of why Aubrey was testifying in the Arizona Legislature
(or anywhere) *for* Alcor was not one I had intended to comment on, but
Aubrey's referral to his presence there requires that I do so. While Aubrey
can knowledgably discuss the present state of anti-aging research and likely
trends for its future, he is not a cryobiologist and cannot with any real
authority of first hand knowledge present the scientific case for cryonics.
To have him do so in any arena could only be for the impression that would
be provided by an astute well-spoken University of Cambridge "professor" or
"research associate" (take your pick). A cryobiologist should have been
presenting the known facts and current research that is the basis of the
Alcor's work, not a biogerontologist, regardless of the fact that it was one
who also misleads by letting others think that the "work" for which he is
justly famous is part of his paid employment at the University of Cambridge.


> > 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.
>
> My point entirely.  Here's a reply to your main outstanding criticism of
> me, viz. that nowhere on my website is it stated that I am not paid by
> the University of Cambridge to do biogerontology research.  The reason
> it is not stated is that its relevance to the true quality of my work
> as assessed by my peers is nil (as you acknowledged above) whereas the
> impression given to those who do not understand the way that scientific
> work is evaluated within the community would be that this means my work
> is worthless.

I will say to this last: Nonsense.  This is a very elitist view that Aubrey
holds of those who are not among his "peers" - that others cannot
"understand the way that scientific work is evaluated within the community
". And his suggestion, that any resulting "impression" of "worthlessness" of
his independent biogerontological work will therefore occur to those outside
his peers, is a derivative of the same elitist thinking. The reality of
humans is such that there are all variations of thinking between these two
extremes. Furthermore, if Aubrey continues to distort the true picture, how
does he (and others) ever expect people to learn to understand it.


> This might be averted by a very thorough explanation, on
> my site, of how science is evaluated, but that would largely fail since
> people would not read it.

Again an elitist statement from Aubrey - presumptuously concluding what
others would and would not read. Others absolutely can't read at his website
"how science is evaluated" if it is not there. This is an excellent
opportunity for him to educate those who are not aware of certain facts re.
the evaluation of scientific research.   (Paul and I have done this same
type of education on MoreLife  http://morelife.org/fundamentals/scimeth.html
which, while only partially complete, is an enlargement of what was
previously the Introduction to the Science Index, from where it is now
linked.) Such a proposed explanation, if it were at Aubrey's website, could
easily be linked from other sites where Aubrey's independent researcher
status is described.


> I am indeed proud to have risen to my current
> standing in the research community without the help of the usual system
> of training, but you are being bizarrely oversimplistic if you think
> that this can be communicated to most people by changing the text on my
> website.

Again Aubrey is elitist in his statements that others interested in
anti-aging and using the Internet can not understand the method of
scientific evaluation when presented in clear unambiguous terms on a
website, even his. If he seriously wanted to provide such an explanation
that would be understandable to a non-scientist, I think he could easily do
it. If he wanted a critique of his explanation for any misleading or
ambiguous statements, Paul and/or I would provide it gladly if asked. We are
seriously interested in seeing that all information - especially related to
anti-aging research - is clear, factual, complete, and unambiguous; and we
will assist others to make this possible. (We have already made this offer
to a representative of the Methuselah Mouse Project who posted on MoreLife
Yahoo recently. The offer, which accompanied a pledge of $1000/year for the
rest of our lives once a pledge total of $300,000/year for 20 years was
achieved - and contingent on another stipulation on fully ethical
statements - was rejected.
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/message/458 )

<snip>

> Further, you accuse me of doing this "so as to ride on the coattails
> of Cambridge University."  Here you are short of a couple of relevant
> items of information.  The University has a press office that tells
> interested parties about experts employed by the University, and it
> often tells them about me. This press office exists to promote the
> University by getting it mentioned in the press. Similarly, every few
> years my Department is assessed for the quality of its employees' work
> and this assessment is used to determine how much subsidy it gets from
> the government in the following period; I am requested to provide my
> biogerontology publications for this purpose.  The first time that I
> was so asked I specifically queried whether these publications were of
> any use, since they are not part of what I'm paid for, and was told
> emphatically that that was irrelevant.  Neither the press office nor my
> Department undermine their use of my work in this way by the rider that
> they didn't actually pay me to do it.  So in both cases the University
> is riding on my coat-tails, rather than the other way around.

To the extent that the University of Cambridge lets others think that
Aubrey's independent biogerontological research is the work for which he is
paid by them, they too are being misleading. Press offices for most
institutions are image creators and often woefully short on being complete
and forthright in what they present. The same criticism applies to his
Department's use of his independent work to inflate their request for
funding (to the extent that they do not support that work monetarily). The
fact that *both* Aubrey and some individuals at the University of Cambridge
are not being accurate in their statements regarding the true state of
Aubrey's biogerontological research vs. his paid position in the FlyBase
Group does not change the fact that incorrect and misleading statements are
being made. Multiple people each doing a wrong does not make it any more
right.

<snip>

> > This entire exchange has been quite revealing to me
>
> Nonsense.  You know perfectly well from past exchanges on sci.l-e that
> your idea of right and wrong is ... different from mine.

Aubrey and I have never had any discourse outside of a few emails prior to
and following the International Association of Biomedical Gerontology 10th
Congress (IABG10), held at Queens' College, Cambridge, England in September
of last year, and of course some conversation during those few days. I can
only conclude that Aubrey is implying that I - Kitty Antonik Wakfer - am not
the author of the posts being made here, but rather that these have been
ghost written by Paul Antonik Wakfer. It is with Paul that Aubrey had
significant debate on the sci.life-extension newsgroup in November and
December 2003 regarding an assertion within a promotional anti-aging
research funding statement made by Aubrey. (Paul originally thought Aubrey
was simply using hyperbole (hype) in order to make a point, and attempted to
point this out as being ethically incorrect and also a poor technique for
enlisting support. However Aubrey saw nothing wrong with his original
statement that: "opposing curing aging equates to advocating that humanity
perpetrate an entire holocaust every two months". Aubrey, in fact, agreed
that this original statement equates logically to: "Not Curing Aging =
Killing Millions Every Two Months" and finally to: "If you don't contribute
to curing aging, you are as bad as a murderer" . See
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ConsideringCryonics/message/453 for links to
all the details of this long discussion.  While Paul made his own arguments
against Aubrey on sci.life-extension, I was well aware of them and I agree
with them. (I will stress that *preventing* anti-aging research - or
cryonics - is not the same as *not supporting* anti-aging research - or
cryonics. The former, which government agents by their legalized monopoly
use of initiatory force are quite capable of doing, is morally reprehensible
because it is interference with the voluntary interactions of the
individuals involved.)  Aubrey, however, had no direct knowledge of what I
thought of his behavior regarding his (and others) misuse of titles and
descriptions of his biogerontological theoretical research work (or of
almost any other issue of right and wrong) until I made them known in this
exchange.

To make it even more clear for Aubrey and others who do not *really* know
me, I am not Paul's mouthpiece nor acolyte. I have my own experience and
credentials and a similar 40 years of thought from a similar philosophical
basis. I think my own thoughts and write my own messages, though as we have
made very clear on MoreLife Yahoo, we read each other's writings, serving as
each other's editor - correcting typos and providing clarity/completeness
suggestions. Aubrey (and anyone else who might have doubted my authenticity)
needs only to view the messages on MoreLife Yahoo, where we often both
provide comments, to see the difference in our styles side-by-side. But just
reviewing any of Paul's many messages to sci.life-extension, especially
those to Aubrey mentioned above, should also make the difference clear. (As
a result of our near 4 years together, I am more outspoken and with more
clarity than when I first met Paul, and he is now more patient, more
logically rigorous and more scrupulously unexaggerated in his writings, but
also less willing to compromise - changes that have benefited both of us.)

Since Aubrey's posts to sci.life-extension where he made it clear that he
sees nothing wrong with equating non-contribution to anti-aging with murder,
I have known that I did not agree with his idea of right and wrong regarding
those who do not support and/or monetarily contribute to anti-aging
research. It is this highly questionable (unethical if he would actually
want it outlawed or punished as murder is) view held by Aubrey, that I
originally had no plans to bring up at all when making my first post, nor
even until this reference by Aubrey himself. It was only in this series of
exchanges with him that the pervasiveness of Aubrey's inability (or maybe
unwillingness) to see the long-term bankruptcy of his shortcutting and
misleading measures became clear to me. It is this that was revealed to me,
and that is so very disappointing. I don't use hyperbole in my writings
anywhere and did not do so in the last sentence of my previous post, which I
will repeat only for the fact that it still applies and I think Aubrey needs
to read it again..
"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."


>
> Aubrey de Grey
>


**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=23682