Jason Pontin of Technology Review considers Aubrey de Grey again:
But while some biologists have criticized SENS to me privately, none have been willing to do so in public. I attribute this to their desire to preserve their careers: whilst the science of aging is an interesting and expanding area of scientific research, the field of human life-extension is peopled with crazies. It is not - at least not yet - a respectable field of study. Still, I am increasingly sympathetic with de Grey about this at least: if he is so wrong, why won't any biogerontologists say why he is wrong? If he is totally nuts, it shouldn't be so hard to explain the faults in his science, surely?
I suspect another simple reason is that biologists are busy. They have better things to do than respond to fringe enthusiasts. It's the same reason you don't see serious AI researchers wasting their time explaining why Ian Pearson is nuts -- he's the guy who said recently we'll be downloading our brains onto supercomputers by 2050. (Or maybe they have... I haven't been following that story.)
London's Science Learning Center is featuring an art exhibit called "Hybrids: towards a new typology of beings and animal products,"
The Washington Post ran an excerpt yesterday from Joel Garreau's new book,