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