Aubrey de Grey Quotes

Accept the difficulty of what you cannot yet change. But do not accept the impossibility of ever changing it.

There is no difference between saving lives and extending lives, because in both cases we are giving people the chance of more life.

It's not just about life, of course; it's about healthy life. Getting frail and miserable and dependent is no fun, whether or not dying may be fun.

[Anti-aging therapies will] never be perfect, but we'll be able to fix the things that 200-year-olds die of before we have any 200-year-olds, and the same for 300 and 400 and so on.

The right to choose to live or to die is the most fundamental right there is; conversely, the duty to give others that opportunity to the best of our ability is the most fundamental duty there is.

Basically, the body does have a vast amount of inbuilt anti-ageing machinery; it's just not 100% comprehensive, so it allows a small number of different types of molecular and cellular damage to happen and accumulate.

My approach is to start from the straightforward principle that our body is a machine. A very complicated machine, but none the less a machine, and it can be subjected to maintenance and repair in the same way as a simple machine, like a car.

Celebrating the future is about celebrating a better world: a world in which everyone's life is easier and their health is maintained longer. It’ll be a life where there’s more time for leisure - for enriching each other’s lives rather than just running to stand still. In other words, more holiday time! So a holiday is absolutely the appropriate way to help us focus on it and make it a reality soon.

If changing our world is playing God, it is just one more way in which God made us in His image.

Theres no such thing as ageing gracefully. I dont meet people who want to get Alzheimers disease, or who want to get cancer or arthritis or any of the other things that afflict the elderly. Ageing is bad for you, and we better just actually accept that.

The scientific method actually correctly uses the most direct evidence as the most reliable, because that's the way you are least likely to get led astray into dead ends and to misunderstand your data.

The biggest handicap in research is an ability to think outside the box. The handicap is being encumbered by all the conventional wisdom in a given field.

What I actually wanted to do with my life is make a difference to the world. That led me into science very quickly.

The aim is to postpone frailty, postpone degenerative disease, debilitation and so on and thereby shorten the period at the end of life, which is passed in a decrepit or disabled state, while extending life as a whole.

If you look at winners of the Nobel Prize in biology, you'll find a fair smattering of people who don't know how to work a pipette.

What I'm after is not living to 1,000. I'm after letting people avoid death for as long as they want to.

Ageing is, simply and clearly, the accumulation of damage in the body. That's all that ageing is.

I think it's reasonable to suppose that one could oscillate between being biologically 20 and biologically 25 indefinitely.

I don't work on longevity, I work on keeping people healthy.

Ever since we invented fire and the wheel, we've been demonstrating both our ability and our inherent desire to fix things that we don't like about ourselves and our environment.

Theres nothing wrong with making the best of ones declining years, but what does annoy me is the fatalism. Now that were seriously in range of finding therapies that actually work against ageing, this apathy, of course, becomes an enormous part of the problem.

Wikipedia was a big help for science, especially science communication, and it shows no sign of diminishing in importance.

In the eye, there is a type of junk that accumulates in the back of the retina that eventually causes us to go blind. It's called age-related macular degeneration.

Some things tend not to work so well for science - things that rely on substantial written contributions by key experts are a case in point - but even there I tend to keep an open mind, because it may just be a case of finding the right formula.

Public enthusiasm for new advances is a key ingredient in influencing policy-makers to stimulate follow-up work with suitable funding, and it can be achieved far faster now that interested non-specialists can explore new research autonomously and can also be appealed to directly by scientists.

Most scientists will get serious media exposure about twice in their entire career. And they'll get that because they've actually done an experiment that was interesting.

It has always appalled me that really bright scientists almost all work in the most competitive fields, the ones in which they are making the least difference. In other words, if they were hit by a truck, the same discovery would be made by somebody else about 10 minutes later.

I dont often meet people who want to suffer cardiovascular disease or whatever, and we get those things as a result of the lifelong accumulation of various types of molecular and cellular damage.

I'm the chief science officer of a foundation that works on the application of regenerative medicine to the problem of aging.