"Anti-Aging" Debates in "SCIENCE" have really started !
May I bring your attention to scientific discussion, which started
today by "SCIENCE" online in response to our recent consensus Letter
in Science "Antiaging Technology and Pseudoscience":
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5568/656a
Specifically, the following new interesting comment is just published
by Science online:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/296/5568/656a
If you wish, you can also participate in these debates by submitting
your response to these articles for publication by SCIENCE online at:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletter-submit/296/5568/656a
Your published opinion may be important for the future of anti-aging
and life-extension studies.
-I have tonight submitted a second response to the letter referred to above.
There are now three responses in totally which can be read at the above URL,
although the original letter requires a subscription to Science for access.
Here is the text of my latest submission which hopefully will soon be posted.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In my first response I was intentionally brief in order to abide by the 400 word
allowance. However, since Joseph H Guth has been allowed far more room, I will
take the necessary space this time to make my position abundantly clear.
The major mistake of the original letter was that it confused the two completely
separate issues of: 1) the condemnation of quackery in anti-aging medicine and
2) the proper definition of anti-aging.
About the first, I am in total agreement, except in as much as some current
therapies *do* have reasonable evidence that they are anti-aging as that term is
commonly understood. Under such currently available therapies with reasonable
evidence I would include, at the least, healthy eating (especially lots of low
cal veggies), exercise, calorie restriction, broad spectrum antioxidant,
anti-glycation and mitochondrial rejuvenation therapies. Of course there is also
no doubt that such therapies will have limited value in extending an
individual's life and that more radical methods (such as some of the authors
have proposed elsewhere) are needed for the purpose of major increase in human
lifespan which I think it is entirely reasonable can be attained.
However with respect to the second, I think the authors are misguided in their
attempt to usurp a word that has been defined with its current meaning for
centuries. I am *not* saying that the use of "anti-aging" is modern in all of
*science* (as Joseph H Guth maintained), but only that the current
gerontological definition of "aging" (increasing mortality rate with age at
advanced ages, leading to a limited species maximum lifespan) is a modern and
very different definition than either the vernacular definition or the
scientific definition of more than about 50 years ago. Furthermore, a perusal of
the scientific literature (using PubMed) will show that the older scientific
definition of anti-aging (which is identical to the vernacular one) is still
very much in use by many, if not most scientists. Here are some examples (from
April & May 2002 alone) identified by their PMID #: 12044959, 12044958,
12044951, 12020943, 12018841, 12007539, 11976206, 11976205, 11976204. In fact,
while checking this group, I found only 3 abstracts (including the letter in
Science which is the subject of these responses) which clearly used the term in
its modern gerontological sense. Finally, it is clear from Joseph H Guth's
statement:
"But Man has always experienced the slow decline of functions during a normal
life-span and understood that it was a result of some mysterious process labeled
"aging." Death ensued when the functions dropped to low enough levels that life
could no longer be sustained. So mortality due to finite life-span and aging are
not really one and the same. Aging preceeds (sic) the ultimate demise of the
organism."
(a statement with which I am in full agreement) that even among gerontologists
there is disagreement about the definition of "aging".
In a discussion on the newsgroup sci.life-extension, I have suggested to Aubrey
de Grey that he consider using either "anti-mortality" or "anti-senescence" for
his gerontological specialized definition. However, he has been stead-fast in
his mission to convert the *entire* world to the use of *his* preferred
definition for a common word which has *never* had the meaning that he wants it
to have. I think that such a stance is worse than foolish and undermines the
goal of radical life extension which he and I equally desire.
-By that definition people over 85-90 are rejuvenating since mortality rates
decrease beyond this age!!!
- Your point is well taken but incorrect in detail. At age 85-90
the RATE OF INCREASE in the mortality rate is declining. The mortality
rate itself does not stop increasing until about the age of 100. I
don't think anyone feels that 100 year old people stop aging. There is
some very preliminary evidence that suggests the rate actually
decreases somewhat for ages well past 100. IMO no one has ever
developed a fully satisfactory definition for aging, and it is time
that scientists and laymen alike should stop trying and get on with
more important work. I defy anyone to post a definition for which I
can't give a clear cut example of aging which is not included, or one
the definition includes but is clearly not always aging.