The ideal institution that can break this cycle will have funding (only limited, see Hammings lecture) from a source with no questions or expectations, and be worked on by people with almost no academic influence. But they can't be herectics or crackpots because you can't just hack your way around biology like you did with computers. This is more akin to reinventing the transistor than creating tiktok.
I'm pessimistic about institutions but optimistic about people. I think the academy is an impediment to a lot of interesting and necessary projects, not just here but in general. risk-averse, prestige-obsessed, heavily bureaucratized. most of the institutions in our society are like this, hollowed out. there's a lot of basic research that needs to be done, so I think the highest leverage thing we can do is knock down barriers to more people being able to do it. route around the institutions
I keep a binder at my desk with printed articles from the web that I find interesting enough to want to keep forever (and give to my children one day). In there is your take on 'playing to win' on the minecraft economy. Thanks for that.
I'm not even remotely related to biotech stuff, but I'm considering moving there in a couple of years just because it's the most important problem I could possibly be working on.
EDIT: "There" is the ecosystem around Aubrey de Grey (whatever you think of him personally).
People live for about 80 years. The first 20 are spent learning the ropes, the middle 40 are spent doing good work, and the final 20 are (ideally) spent in repose and reflection. Half of life is spent contributing to family/society, and half is spent in dependence on family/society; 1 year of contribution for every 1 year of dependence.
By adding even 20 years of quality life, we would make a tremendous leap forward in terms of human productivity, wealth generation and quality of life; instead of 1 year of contribution for every year of dependence, you'd have 1.5 years. That would do wonders in terms of building wealth and improving lives.
"Science advances one funeral at a time". Make this premise obsolete and we will have a massive roi in science, probably keeping expenditure within the same order of magnitude. I am not speculating, I am truly convinced of it.
Open and flowing, but to the US. A high quality researcher, nobel price winner (etc.) does not have its intrinsic value turn to 0 once the clock reaches 65y.
As we innovate more than SK, I welcome their generous gift of talented researchers.
Not in my field, where superannuated faculty members in the late 70s rehash ideas from their postdoc days. Nobel laureates are few, but every tenured faculty member can hang on forever. The pace in SK and the research authority given younger scholars is invigorating to those few outsiders who sample it.
>The problem that I remain the most passionate about is for us to make some real and continued progress in the fight against aging and death.
But how does one help? Really. I've been in academia for more than 10 years. I've had done some really promising stuff and know people with pretty cool projects that are 1,000% worth pursuing. Yet I have found virtually zero support as I don't play well with the "the politics of science".
The problem is that the "politics of science" are typically against "actually doing science" as there is no surplus of time, energy and willpower that allows one to pursue both ends.
I would like people to consider that this is one of the biggest obstacles hindering human development (in science at least). This thing really needs to change, for the benefit of everybody involved.