3 ms·
Its very noisy to read these 'blip' articles, rather like following the stock ticker blow by blow ... Its wonderful that we see these interesting reports every
by jgord 10y ago
Its very noisy to read these 'blip' articles, rather like following the stock ticker blow by blow ...
Its wonderful that we see these interesting reports every week, but as a non-specialist you never how it will impact human longevity, and when.
What I'd like to read is a well considered "state-of-longevity-science" report - by someone not Aubrey DeGray (give the man a medal) but equally cognizant, perhaps more conservative - that actually explains and weighs the torrent of advancements as they happen and gives them some context.
What is the likely impact of crispr, of rosveratrol, of telomere-foo, of gene-therapy, of blood cleansing, of stem-cells on logevity in 10 / 20 years ? Where and why should we rationally allocate research money ? What is likely to benefit Alzheimers patients in the 5 year term ?
Its the kind of state of play you need updated on a monthly basis, due to the pace of progress.
Does such a report already exist ?
- reasonattlm 10y agoI could put one together. Or you could read the last few years of posts at Fight Aging! and get the gist. But I'm pretty pro-SENS so it might not agree with your preferences. The short answer to your question is that the impact of everything viable that is not SENS is probably going to be about the same as exercise or calorie restriction in your life span if you are in the middle of life now. Which is to say +10 years if you pick the right things, and the people building those things do a good job. That would be, say, the combination of a couple of successes in things building upon mTOR or stem cell or telomerase therapies or etc. Not resveratrol, not 99% of the other pharmaceuticals, not 99% of the possible gene therapies, and not 99% of what people are trying to sell you.
- EGreg 10y agoWhat's SENS?
- grzm 10y agoStrategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negl... gible_Senescence
- jgord 10y agoretry : Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence, here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negl...
- grzm 10y agoCheers! Copy/paste fail. I'm usually good about testing, but obviously not this time.
- spaceheeder 10y agoTo my knowledge no such report exists. The only answers you'll find will come from reading dozens of articles like this one over a long span of time, mixed with reading "primary sources" (put in quotes because as often as not those sources may be trying to sell you something). While I am not qualified to put together a comprehensive report, I've been following this subject with some interest for a while, first as a skeptic, and now as someone who believes that not all of these people are completely full of hot air. Even with my change of heart, I'd still bet against anything in your list other than crispr having any quantifiable impact on longevity in the next decade, and even then the first applications will be specific to particular age-related diseases. Something resembling a more full "maintenance approach" to preventing aging and age-related disease may be within reach within 20 years, but I'd bet against that, too. Sticking my finger in the air and guessing, I'd say that such a complete overhaul of medicine is at least 50 years away. Although I should stipulate my guess is only that pessimistic because I'm biased towards thinking that such advances won't be made in my own lifetime because, hey, it rarely hurts to be a pessimist.
- AstralStorm 10y agoThe main problem now is delivery of such gene therapies. Crispr is pretty limited. And human in vitro modification is taboo also wrapped in politics.
- L_Rahman 10y agoWould you pay for a publication that maintained something along these lines but for a variety of topics - energy technology, human lifespan, US healthcare systems, etc? Assume that the pieces are well researched and the journalists have domain expertise, paired with deep reading of primary texts.
- AstralStorm 10y agoSure, but how much? Currently Springer's stranglehold is very tight.