| SENS meetings |
| Roundtables |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| Conferences |
1 |
2 |
3 |
| |
SENS roundtable 1: Biotechnological foreseeability of ENS
Roundtable meeting, Oakland, October 1st 2000
Article Details/Transcript
This meeting was designed to continue and build upon
UCLA's pioneering "roundtable on aging" convened by Gregory Stock in
February, 1999. Like the earlier meeting, it included only about ten
participants and had a roundtable format with no formal presentations.
The major departure from the 1999 meeting was that the focus was
somewhat more narrowly defined, as befits a one-day event. We discussed
an aspect of biogerontology research that has been dangerously neglected
during the recent spate of interest in genome-related breakthroughs: the
active reversal of various aspects of age-related degeneration. This is,
more-or-less by definition, an area that cannot be informed by
comparative analyses between organisms with different rates of aging,
which is the focus of microarray and related studies. We do not belittle
the value of comparative work, but we feel that far more attention needs
to be drawn to ongoing research with the potential to influence human
life histories more dramatically than anything based purely on emulating
other organisms.
The term "negligible senescence", defined in 1990 by
Finch, describes the life history of organisms whose risk of death does
not measurably rise as they get older, but remains the same as when they
reached adulthood. Thus, "engineered negligible senescence" means
restoring and maintaining, by biotechnological intervention, the health
(and consequent resistance to life-threatening diseases) that we
possessed in early adulthood.
We regard engineered negligible senescence as the true
objective of biogerontology research. This is in contrast to the view of
many gerontologists, who prefer to stress "successful aging" as their
goal. "Successful aging" means extending healthy life (healthspan) so
that the period of ill health at the end of life (frailty-span) is very
short, but without substantially increasing maximum total lifespan,
since they consider that unrealistic. Our view is that not only is
extending maximum lifespan realistic, it is the only realistic
way to shorten frailty-span much beyond present levels, because it
entails extending healthspan (and thus postponing frailty)
indefinitely.
|