= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Valentine comments on Leaving LessWrong for a more rational life - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (268)
That's my vague impression too. But if I remember correctly, the original idea of OncoSENS (the part of SENS addressing cancer) was something that in theory would address all cancer regardless of type.
I also seem to recall that most experimental biologists thought that many of Aubrey's ideas about SENS, including OncoSENS, were impractical and that they betrayed a lack of familiarity with working in a lab. (Although I should note, I don't really know what they're talking about. I, too, lack familiarity with working in a lab!)
I just reread the OncoSENS page.
The idea was to nuke the gene for telomerase from every cell in the body and also nuke a gene for alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT).
Nuking out telomerase in every cell doesn't need further cancer research but gene therapy research. Albeit most gene therapy is about adding gene's instead of deleting them.
As far as research funding goes SENS seems to be currently funding research into ALT (http://www.sens.org/research/intramural/the-alt-mechanism). I think it's plausible that ALT research is otherwise underfunded but I don't know the details.