Obviously, we are a site for people who use longevity drugs to live longer, healthier lives - so we totally agree that longevity research is important.
Also, while not an explicit goal for most of the longevity biotech or geroscience community, many people who are longevity enthusiasts are working to eliminate aging entirely, as expressed in the concept of “Longevity escape velocity” (LEV)". And its a topic that comes up often when the press talk about longevity science and biotech so I expect it will be associated with this group, as it has been with Calico Labs, Altos Labs, etc…
From an operational standpoint, Dr. Khan may be a fine choice, my criticism is purely from the perspective of Public Relations for the foundation, as it fights to gain some credibility, and overcome the negative associations it has with the Saudi / MBS and other people affiliated with the group.
Dr. Khan’s bio is linked to in the first post here. While he does have years early in his career as a doctor, and 5 years work experience at pharma company Takeda, most of his work experience was at Pepsi (12 years, according to his Linkedin profile). Pepsi is widely viewed as having a negative effect on human health and longevity, or as this business news story notes: A fiery new report makes a convincing case that Big Soda is the new Big Tobacco.
And, Its highly unusual to see any former Pepsi (or Coke for that matter) executives in the health and longevity field as I look at Calico Labs, and Altos Labs, and throughout the Geroscience and Longevity biotech. In fact, in searching through the list of companies I can’t find a single other case of an ex Pepsi or Coke executive leading these organizations. As I said, he may be fine from a management/science perspective, but as the public head of a non-profit focused on health and longevity, it really looks bad. If Dr. Kahn was trying to move Pepsi in a healthier direction than the company is noted for, I would expect some statement of significant achievements towards that goal, but I’ve seen non supplied. I think the public would be equally skeptical of an executive from a cigarette or vaping company, even though there may be some very serious scientists in those companies who really want to help the health and longevity of people. At first glance, It just doesn’t give the public confidence that this person truly cares about human health and longevity.
I think a persuasive case can be made for taking money from the Hevolution group to help people’s health and longevity, but I also think that people’s concerns about the organization and about geroscience and longevity biotech in general, need to be addressed with serious efforts, and not just platitudes. If Hevolution Foundation is serious about its goals and mission, it would be helpful to see significant, concrete steps being taken to address people’s concerns about the organization, its governance, and the potential downsides of geroscience and longevity biotech.
You mention that the entire world imports oil from Saudi Arabia, and that the country’s movements towards modernization should be encouraged. I can see that argument, but this is also what people said about Russia until recently… but people now say that strategy is one of failure, and most western governments are now moving away from that approach, as the negatives seem to outweigh the positives. See this article:
And I’m fine with using information gained from China and Russia (or the Hevolution Foundation, in the case of the Saudis, I’d rather see them put the money into health and longevity than another of his yachts), or mansions, etc as there is more social value) - I’m just not entirely sure that US and European labs and researchers will want to be taking their money, if it looks like the unstated goal of the organization, or the likely outcome, is to first be perpetuating the lives of the dictators, royalty, oligarchs, etc. You also mentioned profits - I think profit making from capital risks taken with startup companies is fine, thats not an issue.
