Category Archives: Human Longevity

While the Fountain of Youth is the stuff of legend, the search for a way to stop humans from aging is happening as we speakinside the laboratory.

In a study published in the journal eLife on April 8, scientists at Babraham Institute in the U.K. managed to de-age the skin cells of a 53-year-old woman by 30 years in a petri dish. Looking at age-related biological changes in the DNA, these genetically-modified younger cells appeared and behaved as any 23-year-old skin cell should. Notably, the team was also able to de-age the cells in less than two weeks.

The techniques used in this experiment have been around for the last few decades. However, with the woman's skin cells, the researchers managed to shave off time from the usually long process while also avoiding the problems reprogrammed cells can often run into, like inadvertently turning cancerous.

This kind of work is very important, Dr. Ivona Percec, a plastic surgeon and stem cell researcher at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who was not involved in the study, told The Daily Beast. And its one thats been sought out by many scientists in order to reverse or delay aging.

Most rejuvenation or regeneration research makes use of human stem cells, which have the unique ability to develop into any other type of cell our body needs, such as muscle and brain cells. Stem cells can also renew themselves over time and serve as an internal repair system, replacing lost or damaged cells during a persons lifetime. But stem cells are quite difficult to produce in the laband are often rejected by the body when used in different types of therapies.

To get around these hurdles, scientists have been creating their own lab-grown stem cells called induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). They are created by taking any cell in our body and genetically editing it to resemble an embryonic stem cell, George Sen, a molecular biologist at the University of California San Diego who was not involved in the study, told The Daily Beast in an email.

To make their iPSCs, the Babraham researchers reversed the cellular clock on their 53-year-old skin cells by bathing them in a chemical solution that encourages the growth of proteins that reshape a cells DNA. To control how far they de-age the cells, the researchers allowed the bath to run for a little less than two weeks than the typical 50 days. Then they assessed the age of the skin cells by looking for age-related biological changes.

I remember the day I got the results back and I didn't quite believe that some of the cells were 30 years younger than they were supposed to be, Dilgeet Gill, a biomedical researcher at Babraham Institute and lead author of the study, told the BBC. It was a very exciting day!"

Young fibroblasts in the first image. The next two images are after 10 days, right with treatment. The last two images are after 13 days, right with treatment. Red shows collagen production which has been restored.

Ftima Santos

These newly minted young skin cells, called fibroblasts, produce collagen, which is a protein responsible for healthy joints and elastic skin throughout the body. When researchers cut through the cell layer (like how if you injure your skin), the fibroblasts moved into the gash quickly to fill it, unlike the older cells.

Though the findings are quite encouraging, were still some ways from seeing this new de-aging technique used in a clinical setting. Experts also have some lingering questions regarding how long exactly this rejuvenation lasts and whether the new technique actually improves a cells lifespan.

The authors only looked for a short period of time after [applying Yamanaka factors] but what happens once the cell has divided a few times? Does the molecular clock catch up? asked Sen. The authors also never tested whether the de-aged fibroblasts behaved as younger fibroblasts in live animal models. This question would need to be addressed before this can be used as therapy.

Whether this is the key to the Fountain of Youth remains to be seen.

Dr. Johann Gudjonsson, University of Michigan

Dr. Johann Gudjonsson, a dermatologist who studies inflammatory skin conditions at The University of Michigan and wasn't involved in the study, is also skeptical of the experiment.

Whether this is the key to the Fountain of Youth remains to be seen, Gudjonsson told The Daily Beast in an email. He explained that telomeres, which are the caps binding the ends of DNA and shorten as we age, didnt appear to improve with the new studys treatment. Therefore while the function and state of the cells are rejuvenated it may not mean that their lifespan has changed, he said.

Even if longevity and immediate clinical applications arent in the cards, this new study does offer an interesting proof of concept for future medical research and potentially combating aging.

If this process can be applied to other cell types, one can imagine rejuvenating that particular cell type and using it to restore an aged/failing organ, said Sen. I believe this line of research has a lot of potential and we are just starting to understand the rules of how to reprogram cells.

See original here:
Scientists De-Aged a Woman's Skin Cells by 30 Years - The Daily Beast

The worlds billionaires arepouringmoney into age-reversal investments.

Last September, it came out thatJeff Bezos had invested in Altos Labs, a company pursuing biological reprogramming technology. Reprogramming is the scientific term for turning old cells young again. It was discovered in 2012 by Japanese scientist Shinya Yamanaka, who called it a potential elixir of life. The Nobel Prize in Medicine Committeeseemed to agree.

Bezosand Altosarent the only ones.

Theres Google-backedCalico Labs, also focused on longevity via reprogramming. AndLineage Cell Therapeutics, backed by BlackRock, Raffles Capital Management, Wells Fargo, and others.

Coinbase Co-founder and CEO Brian Armstrong recently invested in a company working to radically extend human healthspan using epigenetic reprogramming therapies. Altogether, the anti-aging industry isexpected to grow toover $64 billionby 2026, a 45% increase from its 2020 value ($44 billion).

So, why are billionaires like Jeff Bezos investing in age-reversal or anti-aging tech?

Because they have aLongevity Mindset.

One way to understand the Longevity Mindset is by looking at its opposite.

Most people take the aging process for granted. If theyre disciplined, healthy, and lucky, theyll get 20 or so years of youth, start declining in their 40s, and die sometime between 60 and 80.

They accept that life expectancy is 81.2 years for females and 76.4 years for malesnothing they can do, just take the lemons and make lemonade.

And who can blame them? Nearly every human institutiongovernments, the insurance industry, medicine, religionis organized around this mindset.

The anti-Longevity Mindset is: mortality is inevitable, youth is fleeting.

So, the Longevity Mindset is: mortality is avoidable, youth is extendable.

If that sounds shocking to you, youre not the only one. For years, scientists supporting a Longevity Mindset were shunned, and as a result longevity studies were tabled for fear of losing grant funding.

But medicine has evolved.

Weve entered a period ofexponential medicine: Innovations like genome sequencing, RNA transcriptomics, Wnt pathway modifiers, vaccines, CRISPR, liquid biopsies, CAR-T cells, Gene Therapy, exosomes, and stem cells are just a sampling of the technologies that the worlds billionaires are fast-tracking.

Free from the narrow paradigm of academia, these scientists earn as much as five to tentimesa top professors salary by working for Altos and others.

Ultimately,aging is a diseasea disease that many of the most powerful people on the planet believe can be slowed, stopped, even reversed.

Thats the spirit of the Longevity Mindset.

Examine and assess the six basic areas of life that everyone, whether you live on the margins or in a mansion, must negotiate.

Laying the foundation of a Longevity Mindset doesnt take any capital investment. Everyone has beliefs, a media diet, and a community. Everyone has to sleep, eat, and move around.

In the background, billionaires like Bezos are accelerating the industry, working to bring cutting-edge longevity tech to human beings.

When they do, will you be ready?

This article originally appeared in Minutes and is reprinted with permission.

View post:
How to have a longevity mindset for anti-aging technology - Fast Company

April 12, 2022

Analysis of data from 140 countries suggests many rich countries could use less energy per capita without compromising health, happiness or prosperity. Countries struggling with energy poverty may be able to maximize well-being with less energy than previously thought.

By Josie Garthwaite

A good, long life requires energy: to illuminate hospitals, homes and schools, and make it possible to work, cook meals and study without inhaling toxic smoke or spending a full day collecting fuel. But at some point, energy stops being the limiting factor for well-being.

A child studies by lantern light. Globally, 1.2 billion people live without access to electricity. (Image credit: Triloks/iStock)

New research from Stanford University suggests that point the threshold beyond which greater energy use loses its link to national-level improvements in measures of health, economy and environment is surprisingly low.

The results, published April 12 in Ecosphere, suggest nations with high per capita energy use, such as the United States and Canada, could scale back consumption while maintaining or even improving well-being. Countries where energy poverty remains a challenge, meanwhile, may be able to maximize national health and prosperity with far less energy than scholars once thought.

The authors found todays average global energy consumption of 79 gigajoules per person could, in principle, allow everyone on Earth to approach the maximum health, happiness and environmental well-being of the most prosperous countries today, if distributed equitably.

Other scholars have sought for decades to pin down the bare minimum of energy supply required per capita to achieve a decent quality of life. Early estimates suggested a range of 10 to 65 gigajoules per person. Its one thing to identify where people dont have enough energy; its another to identify what our target might be, said lead study author Rob Jackson, professor of Earth system science at Stanfords School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). How much additional energy needs to be provided?

Answering this question is not just an academic exercise. It is central to mapping out how the world can achieve international climate goals while building out modern energy services for the 1.2 billion people who live without electricity and the 2.7 billion who cook on stoves linked to 3.5 million premature deaths each year from household air pollution.

We need to address equity in energy use and greenhouse gas emissions. Among the least sustainable ways to do that would be to raise everyone to the levels of consumption we have in the United States, said Jackson, who is the Michelle and Kevin Douglas Provostial Professor at Stanford and a senior fellow at the Stanford Woods Institute for the Environment and at the Precourt Institute for Energy. Even using renewables, that would have serious, possibly catastrophic consequences for the environment, because of the materials, land and resources required to supply hundreds of gigajoules per year for each of the 8.5 billion people projected to inhabit Earth in 2030.

Reducing global population size would also tamp down total energy and resource needs, Jackson said. But there are other ways to close the global energy gap with fewer emissions. The new research provides a gauge for measuring some of the human impacts of one of them: reducing per capita energy use in what Jackson called energy profligate countries, while raising the rest of the worlds energy supply to comparable levels.

The new conclusions derive from statistical analysis of energy-use data for 140 countries from 1971 to 2018, as well as global data for nine metrics related to human well-being. Many of those metrics align with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, a set of objectives aimed at ending an array of inequities while taking the risks of climate change into account.

The researchers looked at the primary energy supply, which includes all energy production minus exports, international marine and aviation bunkers, and changes in the amount of fuel held in storage, for each of the 140 countries. They then separated out the total energy that goes into increasing well-being from the energy that is wasted or employed for other purposes, such as trade.

Recognizing that well-being is likely to be limited by multiple factors, including income and GDP, the authors examined whether per capita energy use could decline in some countries while maintaining quality of life.

Across most metrics, including life expectancy, infant mortality, happiness, food supply, access to basic sanitation services and access to electricity, the authors found performance improved steeply, then peaked with annual energy use averaging 10 to 75 gigajoules per person. Thats less than the 2018 world average of 79 gigajoules per capita, and, at the higher end of the range, about a quarter of the U.S. average of 284 gigajoules per person.

U.S. energy use per capita has fallen slightly since the late 1970s, largely because of improvements in energy efficiency, but it remains high in part because of the nations outsize demands for energy for transportation.

In most countries that consume much more energy than the global average, further increasing energy use per capita might only marginally improve human well-being, said coauthor Chenghao Wang, a postdoctoral scholar in Jacksons lab and also a research fellow at the Stanford Center for Longevity.

The new study reveals at least 10 countries punching above their weight, with greater well-being than most other countries using similar amounts of energy per capita. The high performers include Albania, Bangladesh, Cuba, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Malta, Morocco, Norway and Sri Lanka.

Air quality stands apart from the other metrics examined by the authors, in that across 133 countries, it continued to improve with per capita energy use as high as 125 gigajoules. Thats on par with the annual per capita energy use of Denmark in 2018, and slightly higher than that of China. One reason may be that the early stages of energy development have historically been dominated by dirtier fossil fuels.

In the U.S., energy use rose steeply after World War II decades before federally imposed limits on pollution from tailpipes and smokestacks spurred improvements in the nations air quality. Wealthier countries like the U.S. tend to clean up their air only after they have built up wealth and the populace demands action, Jackson said.

Past research has shown that higher income doesnt necessarily lead to better and happier lives, said study co-author Anders Ahlstrm, a climate scientist at Lund University who worked on the research as a postdoctoral scholar in Jacksons lab at Stanford. Energy supply is similar to income in that way: Excess energy supply has marginal returns.

Co-authors are affiliated with Stockholm University, Princeton University and Jadavpur University.

This research was supported by Stanfords Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences and the Stanford Center on Longevitys New Map of Life initiative.

To read all stories about Stanford science, subscribe to the biweeklyStanford Science Digest.

-30-

Excerpt from:
Stanford study finds high energy use provides little benefit for health and well-being in richer nations - Stanford University News

Christmas trees aredead or dying. But some conifers and other trees theoretically could live forever, according to a recent essay that reviews accumulating evidence on extremely long-lived treesand calls for more scientifically rigorous methods to determine their age and study their longevity.

Across the board, trees do not die so much as they are killed, write the authors of the review essay, entitled On Tree Longevity. Their killers are external physical or biological factors rather than old age alone. That is, there is no evidence that harmful genetic mutations pile up over time or that trees lose their ability to produce new tissue.

Trees can indeed live indefinitely, but this does not happen, says co-author Franco Biondi, an ecoclimatologist and tree-ring scientist at the University of Nevada, Reno. Because eventually an external agent, biotic or abiotic [a living thing or a nonliving one such as a physical condition], ends up killing them.

Tree killers include environmental threats such as droughts, wildfires, harsh weather and pestsas well as human threats such as logging and fires set to clear forests for hunting or pastureland, write Biondi and his co-author Gianluca Piovesan of the University of Tuscia in Italy. Their essay was published in the August issue of New Phytologist.

Tree longevity interests researchers in part because trees and other plants remove carbon from the atmosphere for photosynthesis, and older trees are thought to store more carbon than younger ones. The persistence of trees could thus play a role in slowing climate change (although rising temperatures caused by global warming also can put a strain on trees, making them more vulnerable to environmental threats). The rings of old trees can also serve as an invaluable record of climate history, with wider rings indicating better years.

Scientific models designed to study tree longevity have made incorrect assumptions, including the idea that highly shade-tolerant late-successional trees, which are found in older ecosystems that have developed larger trees and a lot of shrub cover, are longer-lived, the essay also notes. For example, extremely long-lived bristlecone pine trees are known to live in wide-open landscapes of the West and in ecosystems that have not changed much for thousands of years.

David Stahle, a geographer and tree longevity researcher at the University of Arkansas, who was not involved in the review essay, used words such as excellent and comprehensive to describe it. But he takes issue with the assertion that trees can potentially live forever. The likelihood, all things being equal, that trees are immortal seems improbable to me, he says. I love the idea. Its a romantic idea, but, I mean, come on.

The hypothesis of tree immortality has grown popular in the past 20 years as researchers continue to report having found little to no genetic evidence of aging in extremely old trees meristem (tissue that generates new cells), Stahle says. And this is one of the review essays most important points, he adds. But evidence of aging could be out there and just not yet found.

Adverse conditions, including the harsh, rockylandscapes populated by stands of bristlecone pines, can kill trees. But not all disturbances are bad for trees in the long run, the essays authors write. Many extremely old trees occur in mountain regions with limited soil and tough climate conditions. Biondi says it is as if trees that live a long time, up to thousands of years, abide by the axiom that which doesnt kill you makes you stronger. Many long-lived trees grew up in environments in which they had to compete for resources, such as water in dry stands of trees or sunlight in dense forests with leafy treetops or crowns, Biondi says.

Earlier in this century, an individual Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) in Californias White Mountains was dated using tree-ring analysis, or dendrochronology, and found to be more than 5,000 years old. That would make it the oldest known living organism on Earth that reproduces sexually, according to various sources. The age determination was made by the late Tom Harlan of the University of Arizona, who performed detailed analysis on a core sample taken from the tree in 1957. That estimate has not been confirmed by other researchers, according to a list of extremely old trees created by Rocky Mountain Tree-Ring Research, a nonprofit organization in Fort Collins, Colo. If we set aside that individual, the oldest living tree would be an around 4,850-year-old Great Basin bristlecone pine known as Methuselah, which is also located in the White Mountains, according to the nonprofits list.

The uncertainty about the oldest living tree perhaps illustrates larger questions about nailing down tree agesa point that the review essay tackles. Some scientists estimates of tree ages draw on unreliable data and methods, including anecdotal reports, Piovesan and Biondi write. The most reliable age-determination methods are analyses of tree rings, with help from radiocarbon dating when necessary, they add. Stahle agrees.

Some popular tree species chopped down for sale as Christmas trees, such as Colorado blue spruces, can live for hundreds of years, Stahle says. But commercial forestry requires neither cutting short the lives of ancient and culturally valued trees nor practicing clear-cutting or other forms of deforestation. More sustainable practices include harvesting only individual trees in a stand or forest while maintaining the cover each tree provides, the water quality it protects and the carbon it sequesters. We can do all these things, and we are, Stahle says. There are good actors and bad actors in the production of forest timber for society.

View original post here:
Trees Have the Potential to Live Indefinitely - Scientific American

5 ways to develop a younger mindset

There is a fountain of youth: it is your mind, your talents, the creativity you bring to your life and the lives of people you love. When you learn to tap this source, you will truly have defeated age - Sophia Loren

With life expectancy steadily rising in most countries around the world, the number of people aged sixty-five years or older will rise sharply over the next two decades. And you might already be one of them.

Certainly, were already seeing far more centenarians and near-centenarians than ever before. Just a few weeks ago, the world was collectively awed by nonagenarian William Shatners trip to space as the worlds foray into space. Not long after, there were numerous news stories about Dr. Manfred Steiner earning his third doctorate at the age of 89. But there are hardly outliers. More than ever, we are seeing other examples of seniors in their eighties and beyond continuing to enrich the world with their achievements instead of settling into the decrepit old age far too many people pessimistically see in their own future.

But what is it that makes these super seniors so vibrant and active? Though it is easy to attribute this ability to stay young to good genes alone, the opposite seems to be the case. A ground-breaking Danish study published in 1995 examined more than 2500 twin pairs born between 19870 and 1900 and concluded that genetics only played a modest role (at best) in human longevity. Instead, non-genetic factors, including lifestyle choices and environmental stress appear far more important in determining how long people can remain active and healthy over time.

Perhaps as importantly, the attitudes that people have towards growing older are often shaped by the kind of negative stereotypes too many of us have. These stereotypes often result from cultural expectations as well as the experiences people have dealing with their aging parents and grandparents. Along with affecting how people treat older adults, these stereotypes can also make us pessimistic about our own aging and what we will be capable of as we grow older. According to Stereotype Embodiment Theory,

people who internalize their own negative beliefs about aging are more prone to physical and mental health problems as well as becoming less productive as they age. A conclusion borne out by recent research.

This can include the belief that we are somehow doomed to become less creative and, presumably, less productive with time. Granted, this point remains controversial with many physicists, computer scientists, musicians, and even artists doing their most prominent work before they hit midlife (or younger). And yet, there are prominent exceptions: J.R. Tolkien was 62 when he wrote the first volume of the Lord of the Rings, prominent physicist Sir William Crookes was 68 when he began cutting-edge research into radioactivity, while Bertrand Russells work as a writer, academician, and peace activist continued until he was almost 100.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg when you consider that people over the age of 65 represent the fastest growing age group internationally, largely due to the major medical advances of the past few decades. As I have noted in prior articles, the biological limits of our own lifespans are being radically altered and new breakthroughs may push the upper limits of human longevity even further in decades to come.

But, there is more to aging than taking stock of your grey hairs and wrinkles. Along with physical aging, there is also psychological aging, something I have already covered previously on Forbes. Also known as subjective aging, our own research has demonstrated that a lower psychological age is linked to better mental and physical health. While true physical rejuvenation isnt available (at least so far), it is also possible to make yourself feel younger, something that is an important feature of successful aging. Here are just a few suggestions you can try, and you are welcome to come up with your own suggestions:

Set ambitious longevity goals for yourself, along with fosterity the optimism you will need to achieve these goals. Our research into using deep learning techniques to predict human psychological and subjective age shows that people who are more optimistic about the future of their health and longevity, expect to live to the age that is substantially longer than average in their country, and of their health and expect to stay in good health or even improve in the next 10 years and beyond. But, what might happen if you imagined yourself living to 120 years or longer and spending those extra years being healthy and productive? Even if medical technology fails to give you those added years, the positive mindset this optimism will produce can have valuable benefits in its own right.

Science is not standing still. Huge progress was made in science and technology in the past decade alone and you should expect to live much longer and healthier. Learn as much as you can about the recent progress in aging research and tart making your own plans for an extended future. Some books you can start with include popular non-fiction books like David Sinclair's Lifespan: Why We Ageand Why We Don't Have To,

Peter Diamandis's books, The Future Is Faster Than You Think, and Bold. You can also take a look at Sergey Young's book The Science and Technology of Growing Young. These are just a few of the books already available on what is already a hot topic in science and many more will become available soon enough.

Take a psychological aging test and try to develop a longevity mindset. Go to young.ai and register for the app which can also be downloaded onto your Android or iPhone. By answering a few simple questions about your medical history and syncing information from your medical tests or your FitBit or Apple Watch, you can receive age estimates based on your different measures. This includes estimates of lifestyle age based on your response to health survey questions, mind age based on your psychological survey responses, or blood and heart age based on biomedical data. There is even a photo age feature estimating age based on face appearance alone! Use the data the app provides to develop an action plan for staying younger.

Develop friendships with younger people and avoid the retirement peer pressure that might motivate you to act your age and just settle for a comfortable retirement. As I noted in previous articles, humans are very good at adapting to radical changes, whether positive or negative. This hedonic treadmill can also cause many older adults to become complacent about their lives and correspondingly less flexible in terms of handling changes and the stress that comes with it. This means that the best way to stay younger and more creative is to avoid this age trap and take yourself out of your comfort zone. At least once in a while.

Consider taking a few courses or even going for an entire degree at a university that requires group work and constant interaction with the younger people.

Join or start a new business, preferably in health or longevity. New business opportunities are springing up daily and this is a trend that can only go upwards in the years to come. Instead of focusing on retirement, you can think of new business opportunities for yourself. Many of these opportunities will stem from the growing number of over-65s living longer and more active lives. Start exercising your own creativity and plan out a business model that will revitalize your own life.

These are just a few suggestions to consider and you can likely come up with more with the right determination and a little creativity. Remember the words of Mark Strand who said that the future is always beginning now and start planning out your own future. It will be here faster than you think.

More:
5 Ways To Stay Younger And More Creative As You Get Older - Forbes

Life expectancy has come to be the gold standard in assessing the health of a population, especially during Covid-19, where the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention and others advised the elderly to "shield" for months in isolation. Health services across the industrialised world have kept their citizens alive for longer, often adding more than a decade of life over the last two generations.

But as lifespan the total number of years someone will be alive has increased exponentially, healthspan the part of a persons life when they are in good health has largely stayed the same. This creates a huge crisis a demographic, economic and, above all, a humanitarian one. And it doesnt have to be this way.

A Chinese winter swimming enthusiast swims in a cold Houhai lake in Beijing, China, December 3. Winter swimming is popular among middle-aged and elderly citizens as they believe it can keep them in excellent health. EPA

Unhealthy ageing is a human tragedy. If governments and health authorities can focus on healthspans, not just lifespans, longevity technology can remedy it. Looking and feeling younger for longer is not the preserve of beauty brands or Silicon Valley billionaires. The science is real. It just needs investment, a favourable regulatory environment and health policies that are as focused on allowing people to live as much, rather than just keeping them alive.

The quality of life is just as, if not more important, than the length of life

The adverse health effects of ageing, just like high cholesterol or high blood pressure, is a risk factor for a variety of diseases. This means ageing should be treated the same way as any other risk factor that is, something to be treated and reduced. Health policy, however, has not always caught up with the science. Ageing is not an inevitable part of life that must be accepted. It is a technical problem that can and should be overcome.

It is no mystery that some individuals age better (healthier) than others. Now we know why: In 2006, the stem cell researcher Shinya Yamanaka identified four key proteins that seemed to turn the clock back on the ageing of cells, otherwise known as the "Yamanaka factors". This discovery was so profound that it led him to win the Nobel Prize. It has been hailed by some as the most important advancement since Francis Cricks discovery of the Double Helix.

But those discoveries havent always found their way into health policy. "Bio-conservatives" have resisted the notion of dramatically tampering with the ageing process, with some describing it as nothing more than billionaires' bid to buy their way out lifes only certainty: death.

Palestinian grandmother Jihad Butto, 85, celebrates obtaining a bachelor's degree in religious studies with her family at her home in Nazareth, Israel, on October 9. Reuters

Azra draws henna on her grandmothers hands in Dubai. Azra Khamissa is a Dubai based Canadian/South-African chiropractor, fashion designer, and henna artist, on August 1, 2019. Reem Mohammed / The National

This misses the point. Every new medical discovery is seen by some as "playing God", until the meaning of playing God becomes simply "being an effective Doctor". No one is saying that we should aim to live forever. And we can all agree that human life is sacred and should be preserved. But the quality of life is just as, if not more important, than the length of life.

This is something medics, investors, policymakers and the public should support because poorly managed ageing is a huge drain on global healthcare systems and economies. According to the World Health Organisation, the number of people aged 65 or older is projected to grow from more than 524 million in 2010 to nearly 1.5 billion in 2050.

If those people are economically inactive and hugely dependent on a constant stream of expensive medical procedures, economies will collapse. That strain is already huge. According to a report in the US by the Congressional Budget Office, the US Federal government spent 40 per cent of its budget, a total of $1.5 trillion, on elderly care in 2018. The same report predicts that by 2029, over half of Federal healthcare spend, approximately $3bn, will be spent on elderly care.

When populations grow older and the age of a society becomes an inverted pyramid, older people become increasingly dependent on a shrinking working-age population. That means higher spending and taxes for the young, which disincentivises them from working. The downward spiral caused by the symptoms of ageing is something that must be avoided at all costs.

Elderly people pose in clothes they have made themselves in front of a town hall in Hongseong, South Korea, November 24. EPA

Beyond the demographic and economic statistics lies human tragedy. Ageing and its associated diseases force children to watch their parents and grandparents slowly lose their independence. People who have worked their entire lives are robbed of the opportunity to enjoy their hard-earned retirement or to keep working. A couple can be robbed of their relationship if one of them is lucky enough to have the "good ageing gene" and the other isnt.

Regulators, healthcare providers and investors must work today to close the gap between healthspan and lifespan. While the average human lifespan has increased from 47 to 73 in seven decades, the gap between healthspan and lifespan is growing. It is predicted that the average global healthspan-lifespan gap is approximately nine years. Living for more than 10 per cent of our lives in relative suffering should be consigned to the past.

Health, as the WHO defines it, is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being, and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity. This definition should serve as a north star. Regulatory bodies like the FDA should create an accommodating environment for anti-ageing patents, including gene therapies, to be developed and licensed.

Similarly, healthcare providers should also look to partner with private longevity providers to get the leading products onto market if we are to have a fighting chance at closing the healthspan-lifespan disparity.

This thinking is already there: The UKs National Institute for Clinical Excellence decides which medicines to fund based on how many "quality life years" they will create.

It is time to set the bar for quality of life much higher, based on the best science available.

Published: December 23rd 2021, 4:00 AM

See the rest here:
Scientists should be allowed to cure ageing - The National