:00:00. > :00:00.buildings. You are up`to`date. Now it is time
:00:00. > :00:16.for HARDtalk. Welcome to HARDtalk. I'm Stephen
:00:17. > :00:19.Sackur. Imagine life without ageing. You could live for hundreds of years
:00:20. > :00:22.with the mental and physical attributes of your 25`year`old self.
:00:23. > :00:25.Would you be tempted? My guest today is a scientist and futurologist who
:00:26. > :00:32.believes it is a proposition that 21st century biotechnology will soon
:00:33. > :00:34.be able to deliver. Aubrey de Grey's Californian research foundation is
:00:35. > :00:43.spending millions of dollars in a bid to conquer the ageing process.
:00:44. > :01:10.Is his vision inspiring, daft, or downright dangerous?
:01:11. > :01:17.Aubrey de Grey, welcome to HARDtalk. Thank you for having me on the show.
:01:18. > :01:20.I guess I have always instinctively assumed that ageing is natural, that
:01:21. > :01:29.it is part of the evolutionary process. Am I wrong? You're
:01:30. > :01:32.absolutely wrong. First of all, I think it's very important for us all
:01:33. > :01:36.to understand that the word natural must be qualified in its use. All of
:01:37. > :01:41.technology is about humanity manipulating nature for its own
:01:42. > :01:44.ends. Whether it is or the wheel or antibiotics or anything, what we are
:01:45. > :01:51.doing is taking what is natural and saying that is not good enough, and
:01:52. > :01:54.fixing it. It would be unnatural for us not to do that, to leave
:01:55. > :01:59.something that is bad, ill health or old age, and not fix it. And when it
:02:00. > :02:02.comes to that part of the evolutionary process, am I wrong
:02:03. > :02:08.about that as well? You have birth, you go through life, you reproduce,
:02:09. > :02:11.you age, and you die. In a sense, you are wrong about that as well. It
:02:12. > :02:14.turns out that even though originally when people started to
:02:15. > :02:17.think about evolution in the 19th century, they said that maybe ageing
:02:18. > :02:22.exists in order to let natural selection work. People in the 1950s
:02:23. > :02:25.though began to realise that no, that could not be true, because
:02:26. > :02:28.hardly any organisms in the wild live long enough to actually exhibit
:02:29. > :02:33.much of a functional decline during ageing. They get eaten or starve to
:02:34. > :02:37.death, or they freeze to death, before they have any real symptoms
:02:38. > :02:44.of the sort we might see in captivity today. Alright, so let's
:02:45. > :02:50.look at a dictionary definition of disease. Because I am very struck
:02:51. > :02:53.with this word. You have basically for a long time now insisted that
:02:54. > :02:56.ageing should be regarded as a disease. My dictionary says that
:02:57. > :02:58.disease is illness, sickness, ailment, disordered or incorrectly
:02:59. > :03:00.functioning system of the body resulting from genetic or
:03:01. > :03:10.developmental errors, infections, et cetera. That does not seem to meet
:03:11. > :03:15.to fit the ageing idea. They put 'et cetera' in for a reason. I don't
:03:16. > :03:18.like to call ageing disease. That is slightly inaccurate. What I like to
:03:19. > :03:23.say is slightly more generous, and say it is a medical condition. In
:03:24. > :03:27.other words, it is something that has the potential in the end to be
:03:28. > :03:35.treated by, or prevented, or even reversed, by medicine. That even
:03:36. > :03:40.bigger concept, reversed. You are saying that people who have aged can
:03:41. > :03:43.in some way have that reversed. That is an understatement. The real
:03:44. > :03:51.genesis of what the SENS Foundation does was what I realised in 2000.
:03:52. > :03:53.This is your California`based foundation committing millions of
:03:54. > :04:01.research dollars to this idea that ageing can be combated, and as you
:04:02. > :04:04.say, reversed. Correct. So the big genesis for this work was when I
:04:05. > :04:07.realised that actually reversing ageing, taking someone who already
:04:08. > :04:10.has some of the symptoms of old age and genuinely rejuvenating them so
:04:11. > :04:12.their biological age is like young adulthood, that might actually be
:04:13. > :04:16.technologically easier than messing around with the way the body works,
:04:17. > :04:26.so as to slow down ageing, which had been historically the focus of
:04:27. > :04:29.people who tried to stem ageing. Is this a question then of replacing
:04:30. > :04:33.parts? I know there is this analogy used of the car, when you say that
:04:34. > :04:40.frankly, any car can be kept running forever if you constantly replace
:04:41. > :04:43.worn parts and components. Is that what your theory is for the human
:04:44. > :04:46.body? That we simply undertake replacement therapy, as you need to?
:04:47. > :04:49.In a way. We must remember that whether a particular thing is
:04:50. > :04:52.replacement, or whether it is repaired, is kind of a matter of
:04:53. > :04:58.definition with regard to what scale you're looking at. For example, if
:04:59. > :05:03.you replace the engine of a car, then you are repairing a car. If you
:05:04. > :05:07.replace the spark plug, you are repairing the engine. And in the
:05:08. > :05:10.same way, in the human body, we typically deal with replacement at
:05:11. > :05:19.the microscopic level, the cellular, molecular level, which would
:05:20. > :05:24.constitute repair at a higher scale. Regarding the whole body. What is it
:05:25. > :05:27.about where science is today, or has been for the last decade, that makes
:05:28. > :05:30.you, unlike so very many scientists, confident that this notion of
:05:31. > :05:39.reversing the ageing process is now within our reach? There is no single
:05:40. > :05:43.answer to that question. In fact that is precisely why it took so
:05:44. > :05:46.long for anyone to make the realisation that this might be a
:05:47. > :05:50.feasible way to go. What I did in 2000, which has led to all the work
:05:51. > :05:53.we have done since, was to bring together a lot of different strands
:05:54. > :05:57.that had not previously been talking to each other, and in most of which,
:05:58. > :05:59.had not even been developed for the purposes of combating ageing, but
:06:00. > :06:04.rather for other purposes within biology, sometimes not even medical
:06:05. > :06:06.purposes. And I was able to see that by putting all these things
:06:07. > :06:08.together, we could actually develop a comprehensive plan, a
:06:09. > :06:11.comprehensive panel of interventions that should be able to be developed
:06:12. > :06:20.within the foreseeable future, which would cover all the bases of ageing.
:06:21. > :06:24.Should be, you say ` in the end, this is a leap of faith. There is no
:06:25. > :06:27.body of research, no evidence you can point me towards, which shows
:06:28. > :06:34.that your proposition, your fundamental idea, is based in
:06:35. > :06:37.scientific fact. You're making a very good point there, because
:06:38. > :06:40.people often make this mistake of conflating science with technology.
:06:41. > :06:45.All pioneering technology consists of leaps of faith, and so it should.
:06:46. > :06:48.What one is doing is taking what is already known, what we can already
:06:49. > :06:56.do, and putting pieces together to form a new concept that is greater
:06:57. > :06:59.than the sum of its parts. That is what all pioneering technology is
:07:00. > :07:12.about. You say to take what is already known. Let me quote some...
:07:13. > :07:15.I would not pretend to be a fully qualified scientist, or in any way a
:07:16. > :07:18.scientist. But I read what they say, esteemed Stanford scientist Walter
:07:19. > :07:21.Bortz, who you have debated with in the past about the merits of your
:07:22. > :07:25.ideas, quotes very basic scientific law. He says the second law of
:07:26. > :07:32.thermodynamics still rules. It is the basics of energy, matter, and
:07:33. > :07:36.time. There is not and will not be a perpetual motion machine. We and
:07:37. > :07:39.everything else wear out. And physical immortality is nothing but
:07:40. > :07:41.a fantasy. Yes. And this kind of makes my point about scientists
:07:42. > :07:44.thinking they know what they're talking about, when actually they
:07:45. > :07:47.only know part of what they are talking about. Example, he has
:07:48. > :07:50.absolutely no answer to the very simple question, which is as
:07:51. > :07:52.follows: if it is true that the second law of thermodynamics
:07:53. > :07:54.controls things, and essentially unidirectionally increases our
:07:55. > :08:07.disorder, then how can babies be born? I'm struggling with that. The
:08:08. > :08:10.point is that babies come from parents that have accumulated damage
:08:11. > :08:16.of ageing to some extent, and yet they do not have that damage. They
:08:17. > :08:21.have the same level of damage from ageing that their parents had when
:08:22. > :08:23.they were born. Somehow there is a way for life, to put it in
:08:24. > :08:31.thermodynamic terms, to export entropy. And the only reason we live
:08:32. > :08:38.as long as we do is because we are so good at exporting entropy. And
:08:39. > :08:42.further than that, medicine allows us to export entropy even more than
:08:43. > :08:45.we ourselves do. In exactly the same way that a car mechanic can remove
:08:46. > :08:47.entropy from a car and therefore keep it going indefinitely,
:08:48. > :08:50.similarly, we should, with medical technology in the foreseeable
:08:51. > :08:54.future, be able to do the same to the machine that we call the human
:08:55. > :08:57.body. As you have pointed out, everyone gets back to cars, but as
:08:58. > :09:01.you have pointed out, if a car's engine fails, the entire engine can
:09:02. > :09:05.be taken out and a new one put in. If my brain fails, there is no way
:09:06. > :09:11.that I can have a brain transplant and remain Stephen Sackur, and have
:09:12. > :09:13.a new brain, someone else's brain. This brings us back to the
:09:14. > :09:19.distinction between replacement and repair. If an engine fails, it can
:09:20. > :09:21.be repaired in some cases by replacing components of the engine.
:09:22. > :09:24.Similarly as the brain goes downhill, we have the option of
:09:25. > :09:27.replacing individual cells that have gone missing, or removing waste
:09:28. > :09:32.products that accumulate, and so on, without actually replacing the whole
:09:33. > :09:37.brain at all. Which indeed would defeat the object, as you say. Why
:09:38. > :09:43.is it ` you explain these things in pretty straightforward and clear`cut
:09:44. > :09:46.terms. They are straightforward. If they are, why is it that the vast
:09:47. > :09:51.body of scientific opinion is against you? I mean, I could quote
:09:52. > :09:54.you a heap of names who are experts in gerontology and the ageing
:09:55. > :10:00.process, and the medicine behind all of this, who say that you are just
:10:01. > :10:03.plain wrong. First of all, when you find these criticisms, you should
:10:04. > :10:06.always check the dates on them. The criticism of my work was indeed
:10:07. > :10:11.pretty universal back in the mid`2000s or so. Very much more
:10:12. > :10:15.recently, this isn't the case, essentially. The scientific advisory
:10:16. > :10:18.board of our foundation, people who have unambiguously put their names
:10:19. > :10:20.and endorsement on all of this, consists of dignitaries within the
:10:21. > :10:29.scientific community who are every bit as dominant as anyone who has
:10:30. > :10:32.ever criticised the work. That is because, over that period of time,
:10:33. > :10:34.we have gradually succeeded in educating our critics, and people
:10:35. > :10:37.understand that what we're saying is not so crazy as they may
:10:38. > :10:43.instinctively have believed at the beginning. One of the credibility
:10:44. > :10:46.problems that you have is that, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
:10:47. > :10:50.believe that sometime ago said that the first human being who is going
:10:51. > :10:55.to live to be a thousand years old is already amongst us, and indeed
:10:56. > :11:01.already middle`aged. That claim looks frankly incredible right now.
:11:02. > :11:05.Are you sticking with it? I am sticking with it. Let me make a
:11:06. > :11:10.slight correction, I never said that it was certain. But I think there is
:11:11. > :11:13.at least a 50`50 chance it is true. If this person is already
:11:14. > :11:16.middle`aged, and they will live to be a thousand, a lot has happened
:11:17. > :11:21.very quickly. We know that the oldest human being ever on this
:11:22. > :11:24.planet guide just short of 123. And we know that right now it seems
:11:25. > :11:28.there is a so`called wall of death that the human species hits when
:11:29. > :11:34.they get pretty much to be 110 or so, where people just conk out. They
:11:35. > :11:39.die. And that doesn't seem to have changed over a very long period of
:11:40. > :11:42.time. That's correct. But if they were 60 today, and they were
:11:43. > :11:45.naturally going to live to 110 without any further medical
:11:46. > :11:55.progress, that means we have 50 years to sort out what to do. We
:11:56. > :11:58.have maybe 20 or 25 or 30 years to sort out what to do before they even
:11:59. > :12:01.start doing significantly downhill. Because don't forget, people who
:12:02. > :12:04.live to 110 get that way by staying unusually healthy throughout their
:12:05. > :12:11.lives, not by staying alive for a long time in the state of health of
:12:12. > :12:15.a typical 80`year`old. So if we take someone like that, aged 80 or 85,
:12:16. > :12:20.they will be biologically 65 or 70 for average people. They will be the
:12:21. > :12:23.likeliest beneficiaries of this rejuvenation technology, that we
:12:24. > :12:32.think we have at least a 50`50 chance of putting in place within
:12:33. > :12:36.the next 20 or 25 years. Let's get away from the pure science, and just
:12:37. > :12:38.by way of one of your points, Professor Tom Kirkwood, who is
:12:39. > :12:41.another of your leading critics said that your proposition was incredible
:12:42. > :12:48.in scientific terms, given today's scientific knowledge, just last
:12:49. > :12:52.year. So he is not someone who was commenting back in the mid`2000. But
:12:53. > :12:55.let's not get stuck on that, let's talk about the scientific body of
:12:56. > :12:58.opinion which is said that never mind whether Aubrey is right or
:12:59. > :13:01.wrong, he is diverting attention from medical challenges in the here
:13:02. > :13:13.and now which are much more important. For example, just to take
:13:14. > :13:16.one, 1.5 million children every year die of diarrhoea. I don't know how
:13:17. > :13:19.many million die of malaria. But these are treatable problems, which
:13:20. > :13:21.need resources. And you are calling for significant resources to be
:13:22. > :13:30.diverted to the proposition of eternal youth. Actually, I would not
:13:31. > :13:33.say diverted. This is one thing. It often is in healthcare spending. In
:13:34. > :13:36.healthcare spending, yes. But in medical research we are talking
:13:37. > :13:40.about a much smaller amount of money than is spent on medical care.
:13:41. > :13:43.Therefore it would be trivial to double whole of medical research
:13:44. > :13:49.funding worldwide and have a negative, negligible impact even if
:13:50. > :13:52.it all came out of medicine. It would negligibly reduce the amount
:13:53. > :13:56.of spending in those areas. That is why we need to make a case for each
:13:57. > :13:59.type of research, whether medical or any other, on its face, and not in
:14:00. > :14:15.relative competition with other areas.
:14:16. > :14:27.The demographics are ageing. Soon 40% of the population in Japan will
:14:28. > :14:31.be aged over 65. What are the implications if you ensure that so
:14:32. > :14:34.many of the people who die of ageing in the future no longer die of
:14:35. > :14:37.ageing? The first implication of course is the good news, namely that
:14:38. > :14:40.the problem of so many people being over the age of 65 wouldn't be a
:14:41. > :14:43.problem anymore, because those people will be able to look after
:14:44. > :14:49.themselves because they will be healthy. The whole idea here is to
:14:50. > :14:53.keep people in the youthful state, so that they can continue wealth to
:14:54. > :14:57.society. The only reason we give money to people to do nothing from
:14:58. > :15:01.the age of 65 is because we are very sorry for them. The reason we are
:15:02. > :15:08.sorry is because they're about to get sick and die. All these people
:15:09. > :15:15.will be vital, vigorous, youthful? In your view, not dependent, but
:15:16. > :15:28.working. Where would the jobs come from? This is a mistake that a lot
:15:29. > :15:30.of people make. People look at the distant future and they consider one
:15:31. > :15:33.particular perspective and they evaluated in the context of a
:15:34. > :15:39.completely arbitrary assumption that nothing else is going to change. In
:15:40. > :15:42.this case, what we have to take into account is that far before we see
:15:43. > :15:45.any significant demographic change as a result of the medical control
:15:46. > :15:50.of ageing, we will see the continued role of automation. The reason the
:15:51. > :15:56.services sector exists today is because it can. Because
:15:57. > :15:58.manufacturing and agriculture doesn't need as many people any
:15:59. > :16:02.more. Automation began with the industrial revolution. Today we see
:16:03. > :16:10.a clear trend in the same direction with the service sector. I want to
:16:11. > :16:18.finish. I don't think that we are going to find a third sector.
:16:19. > :16:22.There's only so many people you need in the entertainment industry. I
:16:23. > :16:25.think we're going to end up very soon seriously biting the bullet of
:16:26. > :16:29.redesigning the concept of a career. The concept of the working week and
:16:30. > :16:32.working life, in a manner that will change your question. Let's go even
:16:33. > :16:36.more basic and talk about resources, how to feed this population that is
:16:37. > :16:38.frankly freed from the process of ageing and age`related death. That
:16:39. > :16:42.means, short of wars and suicide and some diseases that are nothing to do
:16:43. > :16:50.with ageing, most people will be living indefinitely. Therefore, the
:16:51. > :16:56.11 billion predicted for the end of the 21st century might be
:16:57. > :17:03.significantly higher than that. How on earth do you believe the planet
:17:04. > :17:06.can sustain all of these people? First of all, it's important to do
:17:07. > :17:12.the actual mathematics and figure out what would be changed without
:17:13. > :17:18.death from ageing. The changes are very little, compared to what might
:17:19. > :17:23.be expected. I will give you a simple statistic. Today, more than
:17:24. > :17:31.twice as many people are born each day as people die. In other words,
:17:32. > :17:34.if we completely eliminated death, all death, today, we could actually
:17:35. > :17:39.succeed in getting a declining population just by halving the
:17:40. > :17:43.birthrate. I'm not say that's going to happen, don't get me wrong, but
:17:44. > :17:46.we have a lot of knobs to twiddle. All of this happens slowly. Remember
:17:47. > :17:49.all of the other technological advances that seem likely to occur.
:17:50. > :17:54.The main difficulty today that comes from overpopulation is climate
:17:55. > :17:57.change. The reason that happens is not because of having seven billion
:17:58. > :18:02.people here but because those people are using a lot of fossil fuels. 50
:18:03. > :18:05.years from now, with greater use of renewable energy and nuclear fusion,
:18:06. > :18:10.we will be able to increase the capacity of the planet. That keyword
:18:11. > :18:15.you used, whatever, gets to the nub of the problem. You are a
:18:16. > :18:18.futurologist who is coming out with a profound idea about ageing and the
:18:19. > :18:25.ability of the human species to conquer it. You say that of course
:18:26. > :18:29.it will have knock`on ramifications, massive ones, but we will come up
:18:30. > :18:37.with a solution and it's not my responsibility to think about it. It
:18:38. > :18:41.is and that's why I'm here. But the thing is, one has to go much further
:18:42. > :18:47.than to say, oh dear, there might be problems, in order to justify not
:18:48. > :18:50.fixing the problem we have today. The fact is, if we don't know
:18:51. > :18:54.whether the solution to the problem we have today will create
:18:55. > :19:00.insurmountable other problems... You are prepared to admit... I certainly
:19:01. > :19:02.am prepared to admit. But your proposition about ageing could be,
:19:03. > :19:10.frankly, a species destructive notion. I wouldn't go that far but
:19:11. > :19:14.certainly there are problems that will be created. I don't know the
:19:15. > :19:17.future any better than you do, so I can't be absolutely sure that we
:19:18. > :19:22.will solve those problems that we may create as a result of solving
:19:23. > :19:36.the problems we have today. We don't need to know that we might create
:19:37. > :19:39.problems in this way. If we don't know, then maybe we have a moral
:19:40. > :19:43.obligation to develop technologies so that humanity of the future have
:19:44. > :19:46.the option of how to use it. If we say, oh dear, there might be these
:19:47. > :19:49.problems, therefore let's not do this, then humanity of the future
:19:50. > :19:52.won't have that option. If it turns out that they have solved or
:19:53. > :19:55.pre`empted the problems we were worried about, then it would be
:19:56. > :19:58.happy with our decision. I don't want to be guilty with that. You
:19:59. > :20:02.raise such profound issues, based upon your view of where technology
:20:03. > :20:08.is heading. Is it personally driven by a fear of death? It isn't,
:20:09. > :20:16.actually. It's driven by a desire to make a difference, to do
:20:17. > :20:19.humanitarian things. I have a good track record in this department.
:20:20. > :20:21.Before I was a biologist I was a computer scientist and I worked on
:20:22. > :20:25.artificial intelligence research. I think the progress of automation is
:20:26. > :20:28.a good thing, relieving us of the tedium of going down mines and
:20:29. > :20:30.serving hamburgers and so on. Only when I discovered that biologists
:20:31. > :20:34.were scandalously neglecting the problem of ageing is when I moved
:20:35. > :20:45.careers. You've said in the past that if I do get sick I don't want
:20:46. > :20:48.to die. `` don't get sick. Have you thought through what that really
:20:49. > :20:52.means? You just do not want to die? Try to find anybody who is not sick
:20:53. > :20:56.but wants to die in the near term. That's not what you're saying. Your
:20:57. > :20:59.entire thesis is that, in the end, short of war or being bashed on the
:21:00. > :21:03.head at the end of the street, that we will only die if we choose to
:21:04. > :21:06.die. Pretty much. Of course there will be... There are other ways we
:21:07. > :21:20.could die without wanting to, like asteroid impact. There are plenty of
:21:21. > :21:23.risks. But my feeling is that at the moment I'm healthy and mysteriously
:21:24. > :21:27.I don't want to die any time soon. I don't think that there's a factor in
:21:28. > :21:31.that position that comes from how long ago... Do you have children? I
:21:32. > :21:35.don't. Would it be different if you did? If one imagines how human
:21:36. > :21:38.societies work, if we, our generation, is to live forever
:21:39. > :21:41.youthful, vigorous, vital, what on earth is the future for our children
:21:42. > :21:47.and how does human society make sense when everybody remains forever
:21:48. > :21:50.young? That's like saying how does human society make sense now, when
:21:51. > :22:00.it's so different to how things were 300 years ago, when 40% of infants
:22:01. > :22:08.die before the age of one. It's a different world now and it still
:22:09. > :22:25.makes sense. I just wonder, is there a part of you that's a provocateur?
:22:26. > :22:28.You love to stir up controversy. You have stirred up a hornets nest of
:22:29. > :22:31.scientific controversy and also ethical controversy. Is that what
:22:32. > :22:34.you are about? George Bernard Shaw said it best. He said "the
:22:35. > :22:37.reasonable man adapts to his circumstances and the unreasonable
:22:38. > :22:40.man adapts circumstances to his will, so all progress depends on the
:22:41. > :22:47.unreasonable man". Are you playing God? I come back to my first and is
:22:48. > :22:50.up. All technology is playing God. There's no difference between what
:22:51. > :22:53.we do and any other type medical research. I think there is. Most
:22:54. > :22:56.people watching this programme would decide that there is because you're
:22:57. > :22:59.challenging something which lies at the heart of our philosophy, our
:23:00. > :23:02.culture, our society. That is, the notion of ageing and death. I am
:23:03. > :23:09.challenging the notion that we need to get sick when we get older. I
:23:10. > :23:12.don't work on longevity. Any aspect of increased longevity that may
:23:13. > :23:19.happen as a result of the work that I am doing is a side`effect. All I
:23:20. > :23:25.work on is health. Final question and a very strange one. Do you think
:23:26. > :23:31.you will live beyond what currently is regarded as a reasonable natural
:23:32. > :23:37.lifespan? When do you think you will die? I'm 51 and I'm doing pretty
:23:38. > :23:44.well for 51. I come out biologically as younger than that. I think I have
:23:45. > :23:46.a 50`50 chance of being around in a good set of health when these
:23:47. > :23:53.technologies come along, which means I can't add to this question. ``
:23:54. > :23:59.can't answer. If the technology takes longer, I won't make it. If it
:24:00. > :24:02.is quicker, I will. Right now, when you look at the work your foundation
:24:03. > :24:06.is producing, how confident can you be of longer life going into the
:24:07. > :24:09.centuries? For me it is around 50`50 and I don't really care. I'm not
:24:10. > :24:12.doing it for myself, I'm doing it for humanity. Aubrey De Grey, thank
:24:13. > :24:32.you for being on HARDtalk. Thank you.
:24:33. > :24:37.We have been promising rain for bank holiday Monday for quite some time
:24:38. > :24:42.and the forecast remains unchanged. It will be wet, just not for
:24:43. > :24:47.everybody. But where the rain does fall, it will be windy as well and
:24:48. > :24:50.quite cool. This is where the clouds are coming from, streaming out from
:24:51. > :24:51.the Atlantic in an area of low pressure