Comments on: The Life Extension Hubris: Why biotechnology is unlikely to be the answer to ageing

By: Marios Kyriazis

Marios Kyriazis — Sat, 04 May 2013 11:37:36 +0000

We are both trying to define ways in order to defeat aging, with the difference that you (and most others) are relying almost exclusively on biotechnology, whereas I am keen to explore ways that are not based on biotechnology alone. The other difference is that, although we talk about the same issue, we use different terms. For example, it is an irrefutable fact that aging is time-dependent damage which is not being repaired. It is also irrefutable that germ line cells and cancer cells are somehow able to repair this damage and thus are biologically immortal. There are many mechanisms involved in this but the exact details are not very relevant to my hypothesis.

By: Greg Fahy

Greg Fahy — Fri, 03 May 2013 01:20:11 +0000

Sorry, I meant “than in non-reproducing ones”. In C. elegans, signals from the reproductive system induce aging elsewhere, and this is not due to energy expenditure by the reproductive system. This is a long story, but there are more interesting things going on than energy tradeoffs. The latter are a convenient, pat answer that appears to be based on incorrect interpretations of data.

By: Greg Fahy

Greg Fahy — Fri, 03 May 2013 01:15:47 +0000

It would be interesting to know more about what you mean by that. But in any case, the tradeoff you speak of is based only on circumstantial evidence, and there is much contrary circumstantial evidence, including longer lifespans in reproducing mammals than in reproducing ones, etc. See The Future of Aging: Pathways to Human Life Extension for more information.

By: Marios Kyriazis

Marios Kyriazis — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 11:19:51 +0000

Some people have shown that we DO age because resources used in order to maintain germ line cells are indeed taken away from somatic cells (see the concepts of non-autonomous contributions of somatic cells to germ line cells, and also the concept of germ line penetration). Although I agree that biotechnology may, in theory, be a successful intervention in this area one day, it is unlikely that this will happen in the near future in any way that is relevant to us today. In the future it will be possible to set up colonies in the planet Jupiter, but this does not have any relevance to my life now. Our research shows that by engaging with technology now it may be possible to cause such a shift (from germ line to soma maintenance) through the use of actionable ‘information’ (digital and real).

By: Greg Fahy

Greg Fahy — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 23:47:56 +0000

The example about forcing a reallocation of resources from the germ line to somatic cells, while not entirely accurate (we don’t age because resources used to maintain germ line cells are taken away from something else), is actually an example of something that would be a biotechnological intervention. Maintenance is achieved through expressing maintenance genes. Biotechnology can control gene expression.

By: Carson Bizon

Carson Bizon — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 18:27:23 +0000

I agree. Cryonics and life extension biotechnology have been static the last twenty years. They remind me of pseudosciences. They are not and they should continued to be funded and pursued however they do seem to follow the track the pseudosciences where no progress is being made. Homeopath, ufo’s, ect. I think the convergence of Neuroscience, brain preservation, robotics, and artificial intelligence is our best bet.

By: Marios Kyriazis

Marios Kyriazis — Sat, 13 Apr 2013 07:19:58 +0000

I appreciate that there are some isolated examples of effective human biotechnological treatments. But there is no overall comparison between the advancements in non-biological biotechnology and those in biotechnology.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:15:11 +0000

BTW I am a different Jeff than the first comment

By: Jeff

Jeff — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 17:14:38 +0000

I think that you left out a class of targeted biological treatments. There are large numbers of medicines that treat specific ailments. One example that comes to mind is Gleevec which inhibits a cancerous protein created in the reproduction of certain cancers. While not strictly age derived these therapies are biological in nature and are dramatic improvements.
In the case of CML a leukemia disorder the five year survival rate pre-Gleevec was very low (10–15%) and five years post release the survival rate exceeds 85% This kind of dramatic improvement seems to me to show that their is a flaw in your underlying assumption.

By: Marios Kyriazis

Marios Kyriazis — Fri, 12 Apr 2013 14:16:38 +0000

I appreciate your comments, and hope that you will be right in your predictions. Even if the stem cell is indeed the equivalent to transistors, it would not be the end of the matter, because it is the interconnections of these agents that matter, as well as the agents themselves. Transistors that are isolated are useless. The same is true for stem cells. We need to find a way to improve the connections (i.e. in the extracellular domain) between stem cells, in order to maximise useful function. In any case, time will tell.