Here is a review paper that looks back at the recent history of biogerontology as a field of study, noting the struggle with long-held perceptions of fraud associated with the intersection of aging and medicine:

Through archival analysis this article traces the emergence, maintenance, and enhancement of biogerontology as a scientific discipline in the United States. At first, biogerontologists' attempts to control human aging were regarded as a questionable pursuit due to: perceptions that their efforts were associated with the long history of charlatanic, anti-aging medical practices; the idea that anti-aging is a "forbidden science" ethically and scientifically; and the perception that the field was scientifically bereft of rigor and scientific innovation.

The hard-fought establishment of the National Institute on Aging, scientific advancements in genetics and biotechnology, and consistent "boundary work" by scientists, have allowed biogerontology to flourish and gain substantial legitimacy with other scientists and funding agencies, and in the public imagination. In particular, research on genetics and aging has enhanced the stature and promise of the discipline by setting it on a research trajectory in which explanations of the aging process, rather than mere descriptions, have become a central focus. Moreover, if biogerontologists' efforts to control the processes of human aging are successful, this trajectory has profound implications for how we conceive of aging, and for the future of many of our social institutions.

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23264719

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/12/the-emergence-of-biogerontology-as-a-discipline.php

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Looking back at past commercial development in medicine is a fair way to manage expectations for present efforts to bring therapies to the clinic. The short version of the story is that there are certainly cycles in which expectations outpace results, but those results arrive in the end:

Like many advanced technologies, the field of regenerative medicine has gone from boom to nearly bust to boom again in the span of just 30 years. Today, there are over 55 regenerative medicine products on the market focused on diverse therapeutic areas, including repair of skin/soft tissue, wound care, cardiology, oncology, and diabetes. Thirty years in, regenerative medicine has truly "come of age," the result of a tenacious pursuit to translate groundbreaking research into therapeutic products and overcome initial setbacks that almost derailed this critical new medical approach.

Yet while the past decade's focus on scientific advances and business fundamentals has propelled regenerative medicine forward, I believe this is just the start. By reflecting on the successes and lessons learned over the past three decades, we can begin to chart a roadmap for the future that will help to ensure that regenerative medicine continues to deliver important new treatments for patients, while creating sustainable value for shareholders.

From its origins in the mid-1980s, regenerative medicine was greeted with the kind of extreme excitement that has accompanied other potential breakthroughs, including monoclonal antibodies and RNA interference. By the year 2000, more than a decade after the first companies were formed, regenerative medicine companies were valued at over $2.6 billion, TIME named tissue engineering one of the hottest jobs for the 21st century, and Barron's predicted it would become a $100 billion industry. A few years later, the bubble had burst, and company valuations plummeted to a tenth of their year 2000-high.

Several factors contributed to these setbacks. First, like many new medical advances, expectations far exceeded reality. Investors and the media saw incredible promise in early research, and unrealistic timelines were set for when a product could be on the market. Second, the initial regenerative medicine products to reach the market had limited commercial success, as the few companies in the space had not yet understood all that was required to achieve both clinical and commercial success. From a scientific perspective, the field was poised to deliver, but it had not yet developed the regulatory, business, and commercial expertise required for long-term success.

In the wake of these setbacks, there came a clear understanding of what was needed to propel regenerative medicine forward and strike the appropriate balance between promise and reality. When I joined Organogenesis in 2003, the company was emerging from bankruptcy and a dissolved commercial partnership with big pharma. In the decade since, I have experienced firsthand the rebirth of our company, and on a larger scale, of the regenerative medicine field itself. Our path over the past decade has taught us several lessons about what it will take to succeed in this space going forward.

Link: http://www.genengnews.com/gen-articles/regenerative-medicine-engineering-its-continued-success/4653/

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/12/considering-the-business-of-regenerative-medicine.php

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Stephen Valentine is the architect on the ofttimes seemingly dormant Timeship project, which drifted back into the news recently. It was suggested at the time that the goal is less to build something for the cryonics industry and more to provide a tax shelter for those who seek to take advantage of cryonics, which might explain some otherwise puzzling aspects of the initiative. Cryonic providers are not at the vanguard of a wealthy industry by any means, and the Timeship seems out of place in in scale and goals when compared to the ongoing, practical work of small foundations and businesses in this narrow marketplace.

In any case, here's an article that includes thoughts from Valentine:

No one's claiming that human reanimation is within our grasp yet, although the Cryonics Institute claims that insects, vinegar eels and human brain tissue (not to mention human embryos, as shown by the growing success of IVF treatment) have been stored at liquid nitrogen temperature, at which point all decay ceases, and then revived fully.

"No one's saying, 'Hey, we cryopreserved a dog and brought it back,'" says Stephen. "The breakthroughs come at a slow, slow pace, but the advantage with being cryopreserved is that you have time. If they can work it out in 100 or 200 years, you're not going anywhere. You're on ice for a while..."

The early part of the procedure is now certainly feasible, thanks to a process called vitrification. Before, one of the main stumbling blocks to freezing bodies was the damage caused to tissue by ice crystals (think about how inferior a steak that's been in the freezer tastes: that's because of molecular damage caused by crystallisation).

Not surprisingly, Stephen is optimistic. "Many scientists are saying that this is going to be considered the century of immortality," he says. [Meanwhile], he insists that life-preservation is not just for the elite few. "This is no exclusive club," he says. "It's affordable to anybody, because it can be paid for through life insurance. Most people around the world can do it if they want."

Irritated that doubters still see life extension as a crackpot notion, Stephen points out that every major scientific breakthrough in history was once deemed unthinkable. "When Christiaan Barnard did the first heart transplant in 1967 in South Africa, they thought the guy was an unethical monster," he says. "Today, thousands of heart transplants take place every year and - rightly - no one questions the moral or ethical issues of it."

The international cryonics community certainly has no shortage of widely celebrated scientists on its side. Marvin Minsky, the pioneer of artificial intelligence, is a supporter; Ray Kurzweil, the author and inventor, has signed up with for preservation with Alcor; molecular nanotechnologist K Eric Drexler is an advocate; as are prominent stem-cell researcher Michael West and Aubrey de Grey, a prominent gerontologist (the scientific study of ageing).

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/12/an-interview-with-stephen-valentine.php

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko

Mitochondria are the power plants of your cells, responsible for creating the energy stores that are used to power cellular operations. Mitochondrial composition is an important determinant of longevity, and accumulating mitochondrial damage - self-inflicted in the course of the operation of metabolism - is one of the root causes of aging. Here researchers review what is know of mitochondrial decline in aging, and the ways in which mitochondrial function can be altered to extend life in laboratory animals:

For decades, aging was considered the inevitable result of the accumulation of damaged macromolecules due to environmental factors and intrinsic processes. Our current knowledge clearly supports that aging is a complex biological process influenced by multiple evolutionary conserved molecular pathways. With the advanced age, loss of cellular homeostasis severely affects the structure and function of various tissues, especially those highly sensitive to stressful conditions like the central nervous system.

In this regard, the age-related regression of neural circuits and the consequent poor neuronal plasticity have been associated with metabolic dysfunctions, in which the decline of mitochondrial activity significantly contributes. Interestingly, while mitochondrial lesions promote the onset of degenerative disorders, mild mitochondrial manipulations delay some of the age-related phenotypes and, more importantly, increase the lifespan of organisms ranging from invertebrates to mammals.

Here, we survey the insulin/IGF-1 and the TOR signaling pathways and review how these two important longevity determinants regulate mitochondrial activity. Furthermore, we discuss the contribution of slight mitochondrial dysfunction in the engagement of pro-longevity processes and the opposite role of strong mitochondrial dysfunction in neurodegeneration.

http://www.frontiersin.org/Genetics_of_Aging/10.3389/fgene.2012.00244/full

Source:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/12/reviewing-mitochondrial-activity-and-longevity.php

Recommendation and review posted by Fredricko