1. “When looking at the graph you present, a clear trend emerges: the more complex and larger the organism, the less progress we have made on slowing aging for that organism”—the trend is not clear. Rather, the worms are an outlier on that graph. Mice are much more complex than flies and killifish (and much closer to humans) and yet, the results achieved are on par.
2. “The fact that there are 130 companies working on the problem with only minor laboratory success in the last decade indicates that the marginal returns to new inputs is low. ”—Most of them have their individual approaches to “the problem” . There are orders of magnitude more variables that affect the health and lifespan, and those companies are trying just a few of them. So, they are just scratching the surface of what it needs to be tried and done. More researchers and companies is definitely what is needed.
It depends on what you mean by “new resources”. In your text, you wrote “One more researcher, or one more research grant will add little to the rate of progress. ”—and that’s what I argued against, above.
Simply put, more researchers & companies=> more longevity-influencing factors to be evaluated ⇒ higher chance to find ones that work, and work better.
I have to disagree on 2 points:
1. “When looking at the graph you present, a clear trend emerges: the more complex and larger the organism, the less progress we have made on slowing aging for that organism”—the trend is not clear. Rather, the worms are an outlier on that graph. Mice are much more complex than flies and killifish (and much closer to humans) and yet, the results achieved are on par.
2. “The fact that there are 130 companies working on the problem with only minor laboratory success in the last decade indicates that the marginal returns to new inputs is low. ”—Most of them have their individual approaches to “the problem” . There are orders of magnitude more variables that affect the health and lifespan, and those companies are trying just a few of them. So, they are just scratching the surface of what it needs to be tried and done. More researchers and companies is definitely what is needed.
You’re right about (1). I seemed to have misread the chart, presumably because I was focused on worms.
Concerning (2), I don’t see how your argument implies that the marginal returns to new resources are high. Can you clarify?
It depends on what you mean by “new resources”. In your text, you wrote “One more researcher, or one more research grant will add little to the rate of progress. ”—and that’s what I argued against, above.
Simply put, more researchers & companies=> more longevity-influencing factors to be evaluated ⇒ higher chance to find ones that work, and work better.