List of Top 100 Gerontologists (as of August 17, 2012)

Members of the GRG Discussion Group have recommended the following
"Top Gerontologists Throughout History"
who have significantly influenced the direction of our field:
[This is an on-going effort, and there may be errors of omission and commission, and not all entries have been checked on the Internet for accuracy.]

Another similar overlapping list has been compiled by Dr. João Pedro de Magalhães of the University of Liverpool; UK.

Please send us an E-mail if you have any recommendations or suggestions for how we can revise this list or make it more accurate. - - Editor.

Commentary by Dr. Estep on why we shouldn't be publishing this list at all...

I think I understand the memorial and laudatory intent of this list. Nevertheless, it reminds me of the list of "GRG Patron Saints" that includes two people whose public views on death and life- extension are at odds with the stated mission of the GRG.

1. Dr. Richard Dawkins: "We are going to die, and that makes us the lucky ones."
2. Dr. Craig Venter: Increasing lifespan should not be the goal of science (from The New York Times)).
[Maybe we should talk to these folk and see if they wish to retract (or refine) their statements.] If you display this list on the GRG website, I predict it will generate more trouble than it is worth.
Here are some primary reasons:

1. You've reduced a complex science down to a popularity contest with the GRG as final arbiter;
2. You haven't explained what these individuals have done that is noteworthy and fundamentally important; [Maybe would should have a brief biographical sketch for each person. This is a project for an undergraduate student in the future. Would you like to volunteer?]
3. This list magnifies the fringe aspect of this field, especially since so many important scientists have been omitted in favor of people whose contributions are not even close in importance. It's a good thing George Williams just made it on at position 60, otherwise you'd have none of the true giants of gerontological thought. Am I to assume that if someone else gets nominated then George will get bumped out? [Certainly not. They're in alphabetical order.]
4. The field is in such disarray that, rather than handing out awards and making lists, we should be spending all our time rebuilding it from the inside, as we simultaneously tear down the incorrect ideas that absolutely pervade the literature and prevailing thought. This isn't just my view. Simply look at recent comments by Messrs. Hayflick, Rose, Ruvkun, Holliday, and others and you'll find they are not only complaining about widespread ignorance and disarray, but that their positions conflict with one another.

You might at least not number the positions, as if it is a ranking system. If you want to make it relatively non-controversial yet still celebrate people who have made fundamental contributions, then list only those people and what they've done, Otherwise, it's sort of like Groucho Marx's paradox of not wanting to belong to any club that would have him as a member.