I wonder whether the researchers were tempted to try this on themselves. Or the lab costs of producing it[1] would effectively prevent it?
[1] quoted at $50k per day, not sure how many days a person needs...
Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
31–40 of 243 posts
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#32This seems to be a pretty big deal, but the article gives off the impression that mithocondrial aging is the only reason that we age. In fact there are many other aging factors that have not been linked to mithocondrial aging (and have, agruably, no relationship).
Some other factors I recall studying are
- gradual DNA damage, which is quite inevitable
- collagen degradation, which affects the eyes and all cartilaginous tissues.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#33> "with scientists set to look at how the theory of age reversal can be used to treat diseases such as cancer, dementia and diabetes." Alzheimer's medications can generally improve cognition. Age-reversal medications might work even better if used at an early age. I always see articles, media, and papers focusing on how something new can be used to treat some existing disease. But what I'm always thinking is "can I u…
I don't think it's a taboo subject, it's just not really good journalistic form to employ relatively baseless speculation for more than a few sentences.
Basically, as a matter of principal they report on what the researchers are doing, and the researchers are (quite reasonably) going to try to beat Alzheimer's in patients who actually have it before they try to apply it to everyone. No sense in worrying about, Can this be globally administered, like a vaccine? before they even know for sure how to beat it.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather have the choice. I have no choice with ageing. The same is true of "immortality". What immortality really means is that you kind of have a choice of not disappearing forever (well unless a car runs you down or something, but in the future that can probably be fixed, too, by "backing ourselves up").
Rather selfish? We'll have enough problems in the coming decades with geriatric baby boomers, you now want to give people the option to live forever?
This comment must fall under some FAQ. Someone always brings it up in the "What if humans could live a lot longer."
I'm sure that it's trivial to answer and has been answered a million times.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#35> "with scientists set to look at how the theory of age reversal can be used to treat diseases such as cancer, dementia and diabetes." Alzheimer's medications can generally improve cognition. Age-reversal medications might work even better if used at an early age. I always see articles, media, and papers focusing on how something new can be used to treat some existing disease. But what I'm always thinking is "can I u…
The same is true of artificial intelligence. For example, articles always mention that brain simulation would help us understand brain diseases (alzheimer, schizophrenia, etc.) better and barely mention the much bigger implications of strong AI (like that it might be the last thing humans ever need to invent).
>like that it might be the last thing humans ever need to invent
Damn. Putting it like that is powerful.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#36I always wonder about this quote, “Whether that means we’ll all live to 150, I don’t know, but the important part is that we don’t spend the last 20 to 30 years of our lives in bad health.” Imagine a process that makes you feel like you are 25 right up until you body gives up at a physical age of 100 or something. Do you end up doing riskier things because you don't "feel" old? And if you did would you die sooner? It…
if they are successful (which I hope they are) then we're talking about pushing back retirement until 90 or maybe 95 right?
Which I would be totally OK with. Imagine how much more scientific progress we could make if we had 70-year veterans of their field with the sharp mind of a 27-year-old!
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#37 Researchers injected a chemical called nicotinamide adenine
dinucleotide, or NAD, which reduces in the body as we age.
The addition of this compound led to the radical reversal
in the ageing of the mice.
Anti-aging technologies are going to introduce many philosophical questions; although, that doesn't quite seem to be the case in this specific instance since this compound will probably just improve the quality of the last couple decades of a person's life rather than drastically extend it. What's the difference between curing disease/prolonging natural life vs unnatural "anti-aging" technologies? At what point do we start grappling with the issues of immortality? Personally, I believe that the mentally-deteriorating effects of everyday life, including what one may call "sin," will be too much for the modern human to retain his/her sanity after a certain point. I for one would rather face death.
[1] http://www.genome.jp/dbget-bin/www_bget?C00003
[2] http://www.genome.jp/kegg-bin/show_pathway?map00190+C00003
† I say "lifestyle drug" here to denote elective treatment, although the effects of natural aging and death dying probably do not fit in the technical definition, which is to treat "non-life threatening and non-painful conditions such as baldness, impotence, wrinkles, erectile dysfunction, or acne"
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#38http://www.sendspace.com/file/o6n3ad
TY ^^
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rather selfish? We'll have enough problems in the coming decades with geriatric baby boomers, you now want to give people the option to live forever?
If they have fewer kids then where's the harm?
This is very true. It's proven itself over and over in history. The more stable, healthy, and developed a country is the less children it has. Europe and East Asian countries are having this problem right now as both have negative population growth. In fact this might be the solution to over population. If I knew I'd live to 150 I'd probably wait till I'm 75 to reproduce and replace myself with children.
Re: Anti-ageing compound set for human trials after turning clock back for mice
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd rather have the choice. I have no choice with ageing. The same is true of "immortality". What immortality really means is that you kind of have a choice of not disappearing forever (well unless a car runs you down or something, but in the future that can probably be fixed, too, by "backing ourselves up").
Rather selfish? We'll have enough problems in the coming decades with geriatric baby boomers, you now want to give people the option to live forever?
First of all, generations are pipelined. If we live twice as long, the world needs to support twice as many people, not infinitely many.
Secondly of all, one of the problems with the baby boomer generation was just the "boom". The growth was not continued/sustained.
Thirdly of all, I figure with people spending proportionally more of their lives in a field instead of in school, plus population pressures, we'll figure out how to colonize other planets pretty quick :)