Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Trending Stories

Our Members

Many thanks to Michael Goodman and Irene Plenefisch some of our many supporters.


Most Commented


    Doc, got anything to make me immortal?

    They're working on it, and the average life span just went up another 72 days. Here's a survey of some current scientific approaches to reversing aging.
    UW's Matt Kaeberlin is optimistic about longevity research

    UW's Matt Kaeberlin is optimistic about longevity research

    Life expectancy touched a new high again, according to just-released figures [PDF]. We picked up about another 72 days, bringing the grand total to 77.9 years, quite a bit shy of immortality. How far can human life span be stretched by the exertions of science and technology? And could researchers maybe hurry a little?

    The modern project to satisfy longings for the eternal originates in the medieval period. Monkish asceticism — eating little and not reproducing — is the one true way to a longer life, at least in lab animals. Rhesus monkeys fed 30 percent fewer calories than a control group over the last 20 years appear to live longer, healthier lives. The effects of calorie restriction (CR) on humans aren’t known. But CR is no party. It usually reduces fertility. Rhesus macaques on restricted diets resort more to cocaine, heroin, and other drugs, given the chance. Humans on CR smoke more.

    What could be more perfect than a pill that mimicked calorie restriction without the decades of gnawing hunger and untoward side effects? Resveratrol, the magic ingredient found in red wine, extends the lives of yeast, worms, and flies — but, sorry, not mice. (You can still enjoy the relentless internet ads for Resveratrol, though.) Last month, however, a different study concluded that the drug Rapamycin does increases life span, an impressive 14 percent in female mice and a slightly less generous 9 percent in males. Instead of a lifetime of CR self-punishment, mice ate as they pleased and only started on Rapamycin at what would be the equivalent of 60 years old in humans. Just a week after the Rapamycin result, scientists found a pair of proteins which together extend lifespan in worms by as much as 20 percent. These two potential breakthroughs were reported not in fringe longevity publications but the preeminent science journal, Nature.

    Lab-grown organs already have aging backpedaling. In 2006, researchers grew bladders from a patient’s own cells. The resulting implants checked out fine earlier this year, and more trials are on the way. In another milestone, in late 2008, researchers developed and implanted an airway (a trachea) which included the patient’s own stem cells to enhance regeneration. Tissue engineers can now grow thin sheets of cardiac muscle from stem cells and envision grafting these to areas damaged by heart attack, perhaps a first step toward growing a complete organ.

    Let’s all live until the 22nd century, shall we? That’s too modest an ambition for some. In two weeks, longevity researchers will convene to hone “Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence,” meaning ways to make humans immortal. It’s the fourth such gathering. But there will need to be many, many more.

    Remarkably, no one yet agrees on what aging is or what causes it. And although we’ve been stretching the lives of CR-thinned animals since 1935, we still don’t understand how calorie restriction works or whether it does in humans. A recent study of humans showed that the restricted protein of a vegan diet, not reduced calories, triggered the chemical cascade that increased longevity in lab animals.

    Still, scientists seem to be on to something fundamental. The mechanisms that extend life by under-nutrition might also shorten life when over-nutrition reigns. Type-2 diabetes from obesity accelerates many age-related conditions like heart disease. Not surprisingly, anti-diabetes drugs have been tried as anti-aging agents. More than a quarter century ago, Phenformin increased lifespan a hefty 21 percent in lab mice, a bigger bang than Rapamycin. In humans, however, Phenformin has potentially fatal side effects, and the drug has been withdrawn.

    The knob or knobs turned by calorie restriction, diabetes, and various drugs appear to be connected to tiny signals affecting supremely basic cell functions — like growth. Doing better than the factory settings might be daunting. Matt Kaeberlin, a scientist at the University of Washington, believes the Rapamycin findings are highly portentous. But he points out, “We have cured cancer a hundred times in mice — but not in humans.” The human genome provides no obvious handholds for clambering to greater heights of longevity. Searches for “longevity genes” in the DNA of people living beyond 90 turned up remarkably little. And genes that regulate aging are scattered widely over the genome and might number in the thousands.

    Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


    Posted Fri, Aug 28, 6:54 a.m. Inappropriate

    I think the next big blockbuster in this general science of youth arena is a drug called afamelanotide, being developed by an Australian outfit. Main use is protection from ultraviolet sun damage, but also reported to suppress appetite. Definitely of interest to the youth seeking crowd.


    Posted Sat, Aug 29, 1:47 p.m. Inappropriate

    Not to throw cold water on such a hot topic... But how are we going to pay for all this longevity? Increase the retirement age to 80? Cut retirement and medical benefits in half for anyone over 100?


    Posted Sun, Aug 30, 1:08 p.m. Inappropriate

    For those following CR, it would seem that the health benefits would also be cost benefits -- you aren't living to 110 with diabetes, heart disease and cancer. Live a long time with less disease, and expire due to old age with a DNR order!

    How to pay living expenses, well that's a little trickier, since it seems like even the best savers among us would run out of personal savings and be living just on social security.


    Posted Mon, Aug 31, 12:29 a.m. Inappropriate

    I recently came across your blog and have been reading along. I thought I would leave my first comment. I don't know what to say except that I have enjoyed reading. Nice blog. I will keep visiting this blog very often.




    Posted Mon, Aug 31, 8:38 a.m. Inappropriate

    Social security is not a bottomless well. If everyone suddenly started living another 40 years, SS would very quickly have to change either revenue (tax increases) or expendtures (reduced benefits).

    The other thing is how do we allocate this new technology? Is it a pay as you go sort of thing that is not covered by insurance, effectively rationing the therapy? This would possibly solve the living expenses argument, where only the very rich could afford the treatment and also the extra living expenses. But this sounds like social Darwinism.


    Posted Mon, Aug 31, 10:18 p.m. Inappropriate

    If life extension were accessible through something simple like some pills (as opposed to something that's procedural on an outpatient or inpatient basis), I think there would be an enormous clamoring for it to be made widespread and cheap and no government could withstand the fervor -- nor should one! If it's relatively expensive, well, the question might be, relative to what? There isn't much comparable to life extension. . .


    Posted Tue, Sep 1, 9:14 a.m. Inappropriate

    Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that this research should not be applied if it is successful. I'm just saying that there are significant problems that need to be dealt with if this becomes available. It feels warm and fuzzy to think about granting everyone an additional 20-40 years of life, and that would be a good thing. But, there are practical considerations that need to be dealt with.

    If it was just like adding a daily pill to your routine, I think the amount of R&D; that went into developing it combined with market forces would consipire to make it pretty pricy, which would limit its avilability. Given what the pill would offer, its demand curve would be pretty inelastic, so the suppliers could pretty much charge what they wanted.


    Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

    Join Crosscut now!
    Subscribe to our Newsletter

    Follow Us »