on January 12th, 2015 No Comments
Although I haven’t had a birthday yet this year, the transition to writing 2015 on all my checks (whoops, did I just date myself there? ahem) has made me feel older. Coincidentally, I’ve also been working on an article for an upcoming issue of Stanford Medicine magazine about aging and longevity. So, yeah. I’ve been thinking a lot about the passage of time.
That’s why I was really interested to learn that Stanford bioethicist Christopher Scott, PhD, teamed up with Nature Biotechnology senior editor Laura DeFrancesco to c0-author a feature article examining the commercialization of longevity research. The article layers research advances with the rise and fall (and rise again) of companies and organizations that have tossed their hats into the anti-aging ring since the 1990s. With it, Scott and DeFrancesco paint a picture of a dynamic field on the brink of something big. As Scott explained in an email to me:
Aging research, as we knew it in the 1990s and 2000’s, is being abandoned in favor of something much more ambitious. The central features of longevity research include an embrace of big data, a pivot away from studies hoping to find aging genes, a recognition that aging is best thought of a collection of diseases, not just one disease.
I’m fascinated by how quickly this new direction has taken off, especially since classic aging research yielded so little, and became saddled with hype. Longevity research has that same feel to it, and from an ethics and policy perspective one question is whether the promise of healthy lifespans will outrun the reality of the science.
And there’s the rub. As Scott points out, it’s not enough to just live long. No one wants a prolonged, but unhealthy, old age. We need to live long and well. The concept that gained ground is “healthspan” rather than “lifespan.” And from Google’s Calico to Craig Venter’s Human Longevity, Inc , there are a lot of bright minds (and plenty of $) focused on this problem. But there’s a lot at stake.
As Scott explained:
These are highly consequential decisions (funding research, creating new companies, establishing new scientific disciplines), technological inventions, and social changes that are being pursued on the tacit assumption that such decisions, inventions, and changes do lead to a healthier, longer life and the promise of a better future. In ethics, I think these assumptions are largely unexplored and unacknowledged.
The article is a fascinating cross-section of a rapidly growing field, but, as Scott points out, there are still many questions that scientists haven’t addressed. It’s well worth the time to read, whether you’re a writer on a deadline or just a person trying to figure out how to gracefully change that “4” into a “5” on …all your paperwork.
Previously: Exploring the value of longevity with bioethicist Ezekiel Emanuel , Tick tock goes the clock – is aging the biggest illness of all? and Researchers aim to extend how long – and how well – we live
Photo by Maya Stone