In an age where scientific discoveries seem to be becoming more prevalent every year, what does this mean for human life longevity? Bring into play all the new research and discoveries on various parts of the body made to improve human life. What does the overall benefit of these “improvements” mean for age longevity and lifestyle in an ever changing world? Cable Finch, in a Nature article “secrets to a long life”(1) comments on the situation and likes to point out the negative arguments. Investments into the matter of expanding longevity have begun and should be kept going strong. The link between the medical and research field to the actual benefits of increasing age longevity could create positive effects in more than one area, directly and indirectly.
Finch discusses two books published by writers David Stripp and Jonathan Weiner and the most recent findings in the academic and medical fields of life longevity. Finch does not state his thesis clearly. His reasoning’s throughout the article make him sound unfavorable to the subject and against prolonging life. He states “The ageing process is clearly plastic” and he also mentions The US Alzheimer’s Association and what their future predictions are of the effect the disease will have on people over 65.(1) Finch argues that previous test done on mice have only been performed in a lab environment. Meaning that even if the same test could be applied to humans Finch is not convinced it would be effective on the biases we live in a world far from the sterile world of lab animals living environments. He is accurate that testing animals in a lab does skew results.
This is where my opinion differs. I find it an advantage for scientist, researchers and doctors to pursue and generate more studies. Some already have, and come to a different conclusion as Finch. The article “In Pursuit Of the Longevity Divided”(2) bring up counter points to make one question Finch’s arguments. The article mentions “The idea that age-related illnesses are independently influenced by genes and/or behavioral risk factors has been dispelled by evidence that genetic and dietary interventions can retard nearly all late-life diseases in parallel.”(2) If this is future researched and found to be true, think of the possibilities it could have on the cost of health care for the elderly, and that could be just the tip of the iceberg. Later in the article the authors show what research has hinted at that “the belief that aging is an immutable process, programmed by evolution, is now known to be wrong.”(2) Other science research outside of ageing now can come into play. It’s been proven gene altering is capable.
Health care and longer life is one of the fastest growing costs in the US. As people live longer more money, facilities, Doctors, are needed along with other resources. What age longevity research is experimenting with is increasing the “vigor and youthfulness” stages of aging. They might be able to scientifically increase our middle years by correcting the cells in your body that control ageing. Scientist have been able to relate the controlling function of ageing to a handful of genes, and specifically target this cluster. (4) This could potentially have tremendous effects on all way of life.
Let’s make our own best case scenario. Say that research finds a solution that can increase to middle healthy years of your life. This would cause people to know they are going to live longer. In turn they might want to save more money, increase the number of years they work (boosting work performance), live healthier for longer, these are just to name a few. Also people would be able to function longer and healthier, meaning lower age related health care cost. The cause and effect are only minor ripples in what could happen in actuality considering research keeps improving and the funding is there.
What does all this mean? So what if you live longer but your quality is affected is the argument some people might make. As in most cases, unfortunately there are always negative factors. What I like to look at in these situations is the weigh the negatives against the positives. In this field of work, unless we use test on actual human beings, there is no effect on the human life. There will need to be no “sacrifice” people. A major problem critics have is the uncertainty of the outcomes. What they tend to forget is the rigorous testing process drugs must past that are set in place by our government. If you want to argue that this “unsafe” drug or research could potentially pass the testing procedures done by independent persons, then don’t you think a drug in the past that is “unsafe” might have already slipped through the process? That could open up problems in the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) which can turn out to a different topic all together.
All in all, more positive effects could come from the continuation and expansion of age longevity research. From what I gather, the good it could do to our society could affect it on a drastic level, from big changes to small everyday habits, this research could impact. So why not test and let the researchers find out results, worst case is they come up with nothing to help slow the ageing process. There is no harm done in that. With benefits outweighing the negatives I see I will support the research for it could lead to a better life for all humans.
1. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v467/n7313/full/467274a.html
No comments:
Post a Comment