For context, I'm not a biologist, but have joined On Deck Longevity Biotech - maybe half the people have biology PhDs, and everyone is interested in (obviously) longevity biotech.
Yes, there is more money than ever before flowing into biotech in general, including longevity. Why?
For one thing, just a few years ago, people like Aubrey de Grey had successfully branded the field as fit only for crackpots and mediocrities (to be fair, some good people got into the field through de Grey's work, but I am not a fan).
Now longevity (or anti-aging, or whatever you want to call it) has attracted many very legitimate researchers, in part thanks to Laura Deming. However, the field is worried about an "AI winter" - there's awareness that someone or other needs to deliver a working drug in the next decade or so to avoid investor flight.
Here's where I don't get the article's critique: the author lists many new companies, none of which have yet delivered a working anti-aging drug. Sure - but why is that a problem? Scientists and investors alike are well aware this is a new and speculative field.
No one legitimate is promising a working drug. They are promising research, which is normal in biotech (big pharma has largely outsourced research to biotech startups).
What is worth debating is the time horizon. These companies are indeed formed on the belief that there's a reasonable chance of a working drug in the next decade or two. If that pans out, of course it will change the culture at large, make billions, and the field will explode.
If there's no such reasonable chance, then yes many of these companies shouldn't exist.
I was very pessimistic about the chances until I read more of the science, and now I am more optimistic that in a few decades we may see a drug that extends healthspan by say 5 years.
Finally, I will note that "90% of anything is crap" and there are many useless and scammy companies and "researchers" in the field. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
I'm not in that field at all but Aubrey de Grey keep saying that since they try to solve or slow down illnesses of old ages,the worse that can happen is that if they fail at curing aging they'll have at least reduced the impact of some illnesses.
For context, I'm not a biologist, but have joined On Deck Longevity Biotech - maybe half the people have biology PhDs, and everyone is interested in (obviously) longevity biotech.
Yes, there is more money than ever before flowing into biotech in general, including longevity. Why?
For one thing, just a few years ago, people like Aubrey de Grey had successfully branded the field as fit only for crackpots and mediocrities (to be fair, some good people got into the field through de Grey's work, but I am not a fan).
Now longevity (or anti-aging, or whatever you want to call it) has attracted many very legitimate researchers, in part thanks to Laura Deming. However, the field is worried about an "AI winter" - there's awareness that someone or other needs to deliver a working drug in the next decade or so to avoid investor flight.
Here's where I don't get the article's critique: the author lists many new companies, none of which have yet delivered a working anti-aging drug. Sure - but why is that a problem? Scientists and investors alike are well aware this is a new and speculative field.
No one legitimate is promising a working drug. They are promising research, which is normal in biotech (big pharma has largely outsourced research to biotech startups).
What is worth debating is the time horizon. These companies are indeed formed on the belief that there's a reasonable chance of a working drug in the next decade or two. If that pans out, of course it will change the culture at large, make billions, and the field will explode.
If there's no such reasonable chance, then yes many of these companies shouldn't exist.
I was very pessimistic about the chances until I read more of the science, and now I am more optimistic that in a few decades we may see a drug that extends healthspan by say 5 years.
Finally, I will note that "90% of anything is crap" and there are many useless and scammy companies and "researchers" in the field. Just don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.