4 ms·

I've always wondered about the human body. Right now I am studying engineering, but eventually I would like to delve deep into anatomy and biology. An automob

I've always wondered about the human body. Right now I am studying engineering, but eventually I would like to delve deep into anatomy and biology. An automobile can theoretically run forever as long as it is properly maintained, even if that means replacing major parts - engine, transmission, even frame (but at a certain point the repairs are no longer financially feasible). Why then, can't the human body last forever? As long as we are able to make repairs and replace parts when they fail, I don't understand why people have to die. With all of the knowledge and advanced technology of today, something tells me we should be able to figure out how to stop aging - or at least slow it. We should be able to cure cancer. We should be able to cure AIDs. We should be able to regrow missing appendages or failed body parts. Am I the only one that thinks about these things? I would love to get involved in this field one day. I know there have been great advancements in these areas, but it seems like there is so much more that we could be doing.

chc 16y ago
We ought to be able to design a perfect programming language and correspondingly flawless framework, but somehow reality always gets in the way.
DennisP 16y ago
You just described the SENS approach advocated by Aubrey de Grey. They're interested in getting help from engineers: http://www.sens.org/take-action/other-ways-to-help http://www.sens.org/take-action/other-ways-to-help De Grey published a book about their approach a couple years ago, and wikipedia has a basic overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negli...
orangecat 16y ago
Am I the only one that thinks about these things? No, but there's fewer of us than there should be. Which is sort of understandable; aging is terrible and until recently there wasn't much hope of doing anything about it, so not thinking about it may have been best. But today that strategy is counterproductive; we're spending trillions of dollars to slightly extend the lifespans of old people, but we won't spend even one percent of that investigating ways to prevent or repair the underlying damage done by aging. FWIW I've started making semi-regular donations to the SENS Foundation. I believe their work has the potential to be tremendously valuable in terms of both economics and quality of life.
possibilistic 16y ago
Computational biochem student here. Unfortunately we do not have the technological prowess to replace parts of our body as they age. Researchers are working on growing whole organs from the extracellular scaffolds of cadavers, but this technique is in its infancy and I would take all news concerning it with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, we are limited by which organs and tissues we can replace. Case in point: we cannot transplant the brain. Intracellular and extracellular buildup (eg. amyloid beta, lipofuscins, etc) will cause inflammation and cellular damage, and there is no way to remove them. Loss of telomeres and the accumulation of mutations leads to the breakdown of the genome, which is the host of the majority of a cell's state information. We ARE computer programs, and the moment memory gets corrupted things start to break down and behave improperly. The probability of any one of an unlimited number disease states in a cell correlates also with the level of misfolded, degraded, improperly tagged or trafficked gene products, which will always increase with time, even if the central program is well-behaved. Remaining at homeostasis requires us to not reach chemical equilibrium, which requires we consume a ton of energy. Converting the necessary molecules during cellular metabolism puts our cells under heavy oxadative stress. Living requires a substantial number of evolved countermeasures, but eventually it will all catch up to us. Why then are we so inept in our understanding of biology? The sheer astounding complexity of our biological machinery is not matched by any other problem that faces us. Biotechnology is amazing, but we are vastly limited by what we can do outside the context of in vitro techniques or simple, sacaled down in vivo assays. The real systm is always too complex to fully understand, and with so many unknowns we are essentially flying without radar. We can study proteins, promoters, etc. (slowly and with great difficulty) but we cannot "repair" them. We can't excise a damaged region of the genome and replace it at will. You would probably be shocked to see what techniques are actually even available--with my own limited experience it often feels like we are blindly throwing darts at targets that may not even exist. Our sequence information gives us clues, but we lack structural information (especially post-translational modifications) or knowledge of interaction details in the biochemical pathway. If every physicist, computer scientist, mathematician or engineer stopped what they were doing and began work on this problem we might make some headway. Right now our hands are tied. This is absolutely the most important and complex problem in the world. We need the transcriptome, proteome, interactome, complete structure data, better algorithms, faster computers, higher resolution imaging (spatial, temporal, etc), better techniques, higher througput, I could go on and on. We certainly haven't entered the industrial age of biotech yet... Do consider giving biology a try. We could use you and everyone willing. If you want to live twice as long, not get cancer or Alzheimer's, or cure any important infectious diseases, you should join us. Especially if you're a logical and abstract thinker.

chc 16y ago

We ought to be able to design a perfect programming language and correspondingly flawless framework, but somehow reality always gets in the way.

DennisP 16y ago

You just described the SENS approach advocated by Aubrey de Grey. They're interested in getting help from engineers: http://www.sens.org/take-action/other-ways-to-help http://www.sens.org/take-action/other-ways-to-help De Grey published a book about their approach a couple years ago, and wikipedia has a basic overview: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negli...

orangecat 16y ago

Am I the only one that thinks about these things? No, but there's fewer of us than there should be. Which is sort of understandable; aging is terrible and until recently there wasn't much hope of doing anything about it, so not thinking about it may have been best. But today that strategy is counterproductive; we're spending trillions of dollars to slightly extend the lifespans of old people, but we won't spend even one percent of that investigating ways to prevent or repair the underlying damage done by aging. FWIW I've started making semi-regular donations to the SENS Foundation. I believe their work has the potential to be tremendously valuable in terms of both economics and quality of life.

possibilistic 16y ago

Computational biochem student here. Unfortunately we do not have the technological prowess to replace parts of our body as they age. Researchers are working on growing whole organs from the extracellular scaffolds of cadavers, but this technique is in its infancy and I would take all news concerning it with a grain of salt. Unfortunately, we are limited by which organs and tissues we can replace. Case in point: we cannot transplant the brain. Intracellular and extracellular buildup (eg. amyloid beta, lipofuscins, etc) will cause inflammation and cellular damage, and there is no way to remove them. Loss of telomeres and the accumulation of mutations leads to the breakdown of the genome, which is the host of the majority of a cell's state information. We ARE computer programs, and the moment memory gets corrupted things start to break down and behave improperly. The probability of any one of an unlimited number disease states in a cell correlates also with the level of misfolded, degraded, improperly tagged or trafficked gene products, which will always increase with time, even if the central program is well-behaved. Remaining at homeostasis requires us to not reach chemical equilibrium, which requires we consume a ton of energy. Converting the necessary molecules during cellular metabolism puts our cells under heavy oxadative stress. Living requires a substantial number of evolved countermeasures, but eventually it will all catch up to us. Why then are we so inept in our understanding of biology? The sheer astounding complexity of our biological machinery is not matched by any other problem that faces us. Biotechnology is amazing, but we are vastly limited by what we can do outside the context of in vitro techniques or simple, sacaled down in vivo assays. The real systm is always too complex to fully understand, and with so many unknowns we are essentially flying without radar. We can study proteins, promoters, etc. (slowly and with great difficulty) but we cannot "repair" them. We can't excise a damaged region of the genome and replace it at will. You would probably be shocked to see what techniques are actually even available--with my own limited experience it often feels like we are blindly throwing darts at targets that may not even exist. Our sequence information gives us clues, but we lack structural information (especially post-translational modifications) or knowledge of interaction details in the biochemical pathway. If every physicist, computer scientist, mathematician or engineer stopped what they were doing and began work on this problem we might make some headway. Right now our hands are tied. This is absolutely the most important and complex problem in the world. We need the transcriptome, proteome, interactome, complete structure data, better algorithms, faster computers, higher resolution imaging (spatial, temporal, etc), better techniques, higher througput, I could go on and on. We certainly haven't entered the industrial age of biotech yet... Do consider giving biology a try. We could use you and everyone willing. If you want to live twice as long, not get cancer or Alzheimer's, or cure any important infectious diseases, you should join us. Especially if you're a logical and abstract thinker.