4 ms·

Working to do something about aging in advance of full understanding of aging is absolutely the pragmatic approach. It is engineering. It is the building of fin

Working to do something about aging in advance of full understanding of aging is absolutely the pragmatic approach. It is engineering. It is the building of fine bridges by Romans and Victorians in advance of material science and computer simulation. To pick one example from the SENS portfolio - by which I mean the list of techniques developed in the scientific community for other reasons and adopted as useful by the SENS proponents - allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes is absolutely a way to fix protein expression issues. It is the delivery of proteins to rescue mitochondrial function. It has been demonstrated to work in mice with no side effects for a gene associated with LHON by two separate research groups now, neither of which were affiliated with the SENS Research Foundation when they started out. This is serious science. You might not like it or be familiar with it, but you're missing out. SENS is supported by a number of noted figures in the life sciences, including George Church, Anthony Atala, Judith Campisi, and so forth: http://sens.org/about/leadership/research-advisory-board http://sens.org/about/leadership/research-advisory-board There are detailed proposals for the development of therapies involved in SENS. These can be critiqued on their details. For example, allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes can be critiqued based on what has been done, the plans for the other genes, and how it is going so far. You are behind the times on calorie restriction research. It works very well on all measures of health in primates except for longevity. That is the big puzzle in calorie restriction: how to explain this disparity, which ties in to explaining why humans live for an unusually long time. See this paper by Fontana: http://impactaging.com/papers/v5/n7/full/100581.html http://impactaging.com/papers/v5/n7/full/100581.html In general calorie restriction seems better than exercise if you are going to pick one or the other, which would be foolish of course. Do both. But don't expect it will help you be one of the 25% who survive past age 90, because the only thing likely to get you there is an early implementation of SENS. Unless the programmed aging camp is right, in which case there is nothing that can be produced in time to greatly help us. But given that implementing SENS is cheap in comparison to drug development - $1 billion and 20 years to get it working in mice - what's there to lose?

haldujai 13y ago
"It is the building of fine bridges by Romans and Victorians in advance of material science and computer simulation." Not really - it is the equivalent of Romans building bridges by sticking dirt together without figuring out the correct composition of building materials, why/how materials can cement, and so forth. "allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes is absolutely a way to fix protein expression issues." You are actively presenting bleeding edge research as a definite solution in spite of how primitive it is [1]. It is not immediately clear that allotopic expression is the answer, just because it worked in mice for one specific example it is not necessarily true that it translates to humans or other diseases. In fact, findings in mice often do not translate to humans [2]. "SENS is supported by a number of noted figures in the life sciences, including George Church, Anthony Atala, Judith Campisi, and so forth:" While I respect Campisi's work on senescence and aging there is obviously conflict here where one of the pioneers of the field is supportive of a theory that promotes her field. For this reason I think it is best that we do not defer to authority figures on this matter as you will find reputable authorities on both sides of this debate. "You are behind the times on calorie restriction research. It works very well on all measures of health in primates except for longevity." See [3] from de Cabo's group (who is one of the authors on the paper in the OP). If you're talking about increasing lifespan (one of the lofty goals of SENS) is longevity not the most important thing here? From this (respected) paper de Cabo points out many flaws in the studies on caloric restriction due to differing methodologies and genetic variation that resulted in adverse effects in some murine experiments. This is far from 'working well'. [1] http://www.genetics.org/content/165/2/707.short http://www.genetics.org/content/165/2/707.short [2] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/07/1222878110.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/07/1222878110.abst... [3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11432.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature1...

haldujai 13y ago

"It is the building of fine bridges by Romans and Victorians in advance of material science and computer simulation." Not really - it is the equivalent of Romans building bridges by sticking dirt together without figuring out the correct composition of building materials, why/how materials can cement, and so forth. "allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes is absolutely a way to fix protein expression issues." You are actively presenting bleeding edge research as a definite solution in spite of how primitive it is [1]. It is not immediately clear that allotopic expression is the answer, just because it worked in mice for one specific example it is not necessarily true that it translates to humans or other diseases. In fact, findings in mice often do not translate to humans [2]. "SENS is supported by a number of noted figures in the life sciences, including George Church, Anthony Atala, Judith Campisi, and so forth:" While I respect Campisi's work on senescence and aging there is obviously conflict here where one of the pioneers of the field is supportive of a theory that promotes her field. For this reason I think it is best that we do not defer to authority figures on this matter as you will find reputable authorities on both sides of this debate. "You are behind the times on calorie restriction research. It works very well on all measures of health in primates except for longevity." See [3] from de Cabo's group (who is one of the authors on the paper in the OP). If you're talking about increasing lifespan (one of the lofty goals of SENS) is longevity not the most important thing here? From this (respected) paper de Cabo points out many flaws in the studies on caloric restriction due to differing methodologies and genetic variation that resulted in adverse effects in some murine experiments. This is far from 'working well'. [1] http://www.genetics.org/content/165/2/707.short http://www.genetics.org/content/165/2/707.short [2] http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/07/1222878110.abstract http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/02/07/1222878110.abst... [3] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature11432.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7415/full/nature1...