Life Expectancy in 2100

 

source  

Cheers, 

Colin

Inhibition of Protein IL-11 = Increased healthspan?

Nature news has this story about a recent study (published here) of a drug that blocks inflammation (protein IL-11) in mice, resulting in increased healthy lifespan.  A sample from the news item: 

A protein that promotes inflammation could hold the key to a longer, healthier life. Blocking the protein, called IL-11, in middle-aged mice boosted metabolism, reduced frailty and increased lifespan by about 25%.

Although a research team tested for these health effects only in mice, IL-11 and its molecular partners — which include chemical messengers for the immune system called interleukins — also exist in humans. And drug candidates that block IL-11 are already in human trials against cancer and fibrosis, a condition associated with ageing in which scar tissue replaces healthy tissue.

Cheers, 

Colin

Study on Ageism and Social Media

There is an interesting (and timely, given the current state of US politics) study posted in JAGS on social media discourse on ageism, sexism, and racism.  A sample from the findings: 

This study provides empirical support that ageism is one of the least discussed forms of inequality. Furthermore, unlike instances of racism and sexism, which often trigger public outrage and large-scale online activism, instances of ageism rarely precipitate spikes in Twitter activity. This signifies that ageism is a less visible form of discrimination than racism and sexism. Our results also suggest that spikes in Twitter activity for ageism are likely driven by a particular subset of users, namely academics and policymakers with a keen interest in gerontology.

Cheers,

Colin

The Demise of Two Prominent Journals in Political Philosophy?

Over the past few months I have read the news, in various social media posts, that the future of two major journals in political philosophy are in jeopardy- Philosophy and Public Affairs and the Journal of Political Philosophy.  

These two journals are among the most influential and prominent for mainstream topics/debates in political philosophy.  So I admit I was very shocked and saddened to learn of their apparent demise.  I am an outsider to the inner circle of both journals, so I do not know exactly what their future fates are and the reasons for this unfortunate development.  It is not clear to me that the journals are ending, only that the editors/ editorial teams of both journals have left with intentions to create open access versions of the journals.  I gather, again from the scant information I have read online (which I suspect is only part of the story), that this occurred because of disagreements/ challenges of working with the publisher. 

Many years ago I decided to write and engage with a readership outside the scope of both of these journals, in part because I did not find the core of the field particularly engaging or interesting and so I sought out other venues/ interlocutors for my research and intellectual development.  But I had hoped both journals would flourish, and perhaps evolve and develop in terms of both scope and interdisciplinary engagement.  It can take many decades to build a journal's reputation, and both of these journals had a significant degree of respect among scholars outside of philosophy (e.g. in both law and political science).  Perhaps new open access versions of the journals will inherit the reputable legacies of their predecessors.  The resigning editors/editorial boards seem to think so.  But I admit I am less optimistic, and to be honest I find it problematic that the future of the field has been dramatically altered by only a handful of scholars.  I watched a similar issue arise with the journal Aging Cell a few years back, when the editorial team left to create the new online journal Aging Biology (though Aging Cell continued).

I can imagine the frustration and angst of junior scholars hoping to go up for tenure in a few years who will have published articles over the past few years that are now placed in potentially defunct journals. Or those who may publish future work in relevantly unknown/new open access journals, on the gamble that those journals will be sustained over time and achieve a high reputation.  These junior scholars will face the additional stress of trying to convince deans and provosts that these publication venues are highly reputable publication venues for their research, despite being defunct/ new.  The handful of scholars who resigned from the editorial boards of course are all tenured and gainfully employed, and so can weather the storm of this kind of professional uncertainty more easily than those trying to get established in the field.  So I believe these developments could adversely impact both recruitment into the field, as well as mudding the indicators of the paths to success through the early stages of establishing oneself in the field.    

And my larger worry is that these developments threaten to further marginalize the field within academia.  A decade or so from now a clearer picture of the impact of these changes on the discipline should be apparent.  But until then I guess we cross our fingers and hope things work out!

Cheers, 

Colin

JAGS Commentary (forthcoming)

I was very pleased to receive the news that my commentary entitled "The Role of Science Communication in Advancing Translational Gerontology"  has been accepted for publication in the Journal of the American Geriatrics Society (JAGS).  More details, along with a video abstract, will be posted when it first appears online.

Cheers, 

Colin

New book is available

My latest book is now available. tl;dr: critically engaging the ideas of past thinkers can help us refine the problem-solving skills needed to meet the societal challenges of today and tomorrow.

Might be of interest to colleagues who teach courses on historical political thinkers. The book has chapters on Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, conservatism (Burke, Hegel, Washington), feminism (Pizan, Cooper, Wollstonecraft), Black political thought (Douglass, Du Bois, MLK, Fanon), utilitarianism (Bentham and Mill) and Marx. The concluding chapter brings those ideas together to address climate change, biomedical innovations, the COVID-19 pandemic, and artificial intelligence.

This book has been many years in the making, and was the project I invested most of my time and energy into completing during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cheers,

Colin

Russell's Marriage and Morals (Reading group, meeting #3 notes)

 

Meeting #3  [meeting #1 notes here; meeting #2 notes here]

This is our third meeting for Russell’s book Marriage and Morals, covering chapters on the family and divorce.

In Chapter XIII Russell argues that the family provides the only rational basis for a limit on sexual freedom-- the interests of potential children is the only reason why some stability in sexual relations/ marriage is required.  I found this a surprising conclusion.  Question:  Do you agree with this?  With more reliable (though not full proof!) birth control more readily available, has this altered the moral landscape on this issue compared to a century ago?

Russell also contends that in agricultural times family was driven by economic considerations, but with the rise of industrialization came a rise in individualism. Now people want to marry who they choose to marry vs who their parents choose.  Russell also notes that fathers play a little role in raising their children, that they are too busy working.  Question:  Have things changed over the past century, with both parents working outside the home?

Russell emphasizes the impact having children has on the parent’s emotions, as both mothers and fathers regulate their lives largely by reference to their children. 

In Chapter 15 he addresses the role of the state, as the family is product of the legal system.  Public schooling plays a formative role in children’s development, complementing/augmenting parental influence.  Question:   How did school impact your childhood development, in both good and bad ways?

When addressing divorce in chapter 16 Russell considers the issue of how hard or easy it should be to get a divorce.  He considers cases involving partner insanity, lack of sex (which he claims can cause premature aging! [Russell did live to age 97]), desertion and adultery (which he did not think was grounds for a divorce).  How have social norms and laws around divorce changed since Russell’s time? 

Cheers, 

Colin