Nature Article on Aging

This week's issue of Nature has an excellent piece by Thomas Kirkwood entitled "A Systematic Look at an Old Problem". The paper addresses one of the most pressing and challenging issues humanity faces this century- tackling aging. As I've noted many times before (e.g. see here), the imperative to retard human aging occupies a great deal of my current research. And so it was with much interest that I read Kirkwood's interesting article. Here is a sample:

The continuing increase in life expectancy, which in many countries advances by several hours per day, is one of humanity's most astonishing successes. But as the population ages, new approaches are required to unravel the complex biology of ageing and understand its links with frailty and disease.

The increase in human life expectancy over the past ten years has taken both scientists and the population generally by surprise. Until recently, demographers were confidently predicting that once the gains made by reducing mortality in early and middle life had reached completion, growth in longevity would stop and we would see the fixed reality of the ageing process. This has not happened1. In much of the developed world, life expectancy continues to increase at the rate of five or more hours per day; in some developing countries, which have some catching up to do, the rate is even faster.

The continuing increase in life expectancy, which in many countries advances by several hours per day, is one of humanity's most astonishing successes. But as the population ages, new approaches are required to unravel the complex biology of ageing and understand its links with frailty and disease.

....The idea that ageing is programmed was dismissed long ago by evolutionary gerontologists who recognized that natural selection could not, and would not, bring about such a fate (except in very special circumstances)4, 5. Even for those who spurned such logic, the idea of programmed ageing began to seem rather odd when it was found that the genes that affect longevity do so not by changing the timing of a mechanism for self-destruction, but by adjusting hundreds of mechanisms for maintenance and repair6, 7. If ageing were programmed, this would be a clumsy way to do it.

....Age is by far the biggest risk factor for a wide range of clinical conditions that are prevalent today. One might therefore presume that a major effort is being made to understand the ways in which ageing renders the elderly more vulnerable to pathology. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is a large number of medical research institutes around the world, many with a focus on one or more of the major age-related diseases — cancer, heart disease, arthritis or dementia. Yet only a tiny fraction of these carries out any research on the intrinsic contribution from the ageing process itself.

The point Kirkwood notes in the final paragraph above- that age is by far the biggest risk factor for a range of prevalent clinical conditions- is more than sufficient grounds for taking seriously the duty to retard human aging. Once we add to this the fact that incredible advances have been made in our understanding of the biology of aging (like the fact that aging is not immutable, and that particular genes can extend longevity), one realizes that there is no justification for the current neglect of aging research. To get serious about promoting our health prospects we have to get serious about retarding human aging. It's great to see premier science journals like Nature taking these issues seriously.

Cheers,
Colin