Research into the Mechanisms of Aging is Very Poorly Funded in Comparison to its Importance to Health
Research into aging is sparsely funded in comparison to research into the biochemistry and treatment of any specific common age-related disease, such as atherosclerosis or Alzheimer's disease. Yet these conditions are caused by aging. So we have the strange situation in which the past century of work on treating age-related conditions has produced only small gains, because the research and development communities have steadfastly refused to work on the root cause of these conditions - which is to say the mechanisms of aging, the accumulation of cell and tissue damage that causes degeneration and dysfunction.
This problematic and frustrating state of affairs is slowly changing, and more rapidly in the past few years, but the gains made by patient advocates and the small community of researchers who do work on aging are still incremental. The mechanisms of aging remain a small area of research in comparison to the rest of medicine. This is far out of line, given that age-related disease - the consequence of the mechanisms of aging - is the dominant form of human mortality, by far the greatest medical cost imposed upon individuals, and causes by far the most suffering. Year after year, the priorities for medical research and development remain distant from this reality.
Leonard Hayflick is a retired eminence in the field who happens to hold the completely incorrect view that aging is, in some meaningful way, a consequence of thermodynamics and entropy gain over time. This is easily dismissed: an aging cell or an aging individual is not a closed system, and therefore can certainly lose entropy over time given suitable circumstances. Most of what he has to say about the present poor allocation of resources and attention is quite right, however. Just substitute a focus on molecular damage and persistent metabolic waste after the SENS view of aging for Hayflick's considerations of thermodynamics.
The greatest risk factor for the leading cause of death is ignored
All major United States institutional advocates for research on the biology of aging and for the leading causes of death assert that aging is the greatest risk factor for these deaths. Nevertheless, all fail to support research on the etiology of aging despite having mechanisms to do so. Bordering on scandal, research on the cause of aging in life forms is not a major priority for any organization in this country with "Age" or "Aging" in its title. This neglect is inexplicable because the mantra believed by most physicians, geriatricians and biogerontologists is that "Aging is the greatest risk factor for the leading causes of death." It does not require a great leap of intellect to ask: "Then, why is research on the etiology of the greatest risk factor that increases vulnerability to cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and Alzheimer's disease (AD), ignored?"
The field of aging is the only area of biomedical research where causation is ignored. This inexplicable omission is compounded by the fact that aging is a universal human phenomenon for all who live long enough to experience it. Even for those in good health, that condition is merely the slowest rate of aging and dying. Today, like the former rich and powerful, their modern counterparts have the same goals in the form of funding hundreds of biotech startup companies. Plus ça change, plus c'est la meme chose. In these modern efforts there seems to be little understanding that there is an enormous difference between the molecular biology of what determines the longevity of life forms and what causes their aging. Longevity is determined by anabolic processes and addresses the question, "Why do life forms live as long as they do?" Aging is a catabolic process that addresses the question, "Why do longevity systems eventually fail?"
There is a general failure to understand that manipulating the genome or anabolic processes in living forms which may increase longevity, or cure a disease, tells us nothing about the dysfunctional or missing molecules that characterize the catabolic process of aging. Research on the biogerontology of aging is unique because of the common belief that the goal is to interfere or manipulate the process. The availability of funds for age-associated disease research is several orders of magnitude greater than what is available for research on the fundamental biology of their greatest risk factor. The resolution of any age-associated disease has not in the past, nor will it in the future, improve our understanding of the etiology of aging. A century ago, the leading cause of death in old age was pneumonia, often called "the old man's friend" (with its sexist overtones). Pneumonia is no longer one of the leading causes of death in old age and its resolution did not advance our knowledge of the cause of aging. Nor will the resolution of any other age-associated pathology.
Hey there! Just a 2 cents.
An incredible article, by the master himself, Mr. Hayflick. To think he discovered replicative senescence (his Hayflick limit) of cells in 1960s...time flies and it goes to show as he says ''plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose'' (the more it changes the more it's the same (thing)) I like it when he talks in my 1st language)...it's incredible to see him write after such hiatus. They say we become pessimistic with age, we care but mostly don't care (cause dying later/soon), grumpy (old men), negative nelly and well maybe Mr. Hayflick is starting to be/or is in that period. I tihnk most elders are positive about the future generation (and taking over his near 60year reign) and finding the cure to aging. But, he is real he says it from experience and immense encyclopedic mind/wisdom/wits; he knows the ins and outs, so he knows that right now we 'are going backwards' and 'in circle'.
''Aging is a problem in physics and not biology''
I think this partly-true (just a 2c), biology is 100% causal to aging. Physics (laws/entropy/gravity/ thermolaws/atoms...) and so forth are just things happening at the same time..we just have to deal with them..it might full entropy/'random(ness) hazard' result but studies in aging showed that results happen in it; like Calorie Restriction for example, tt's all biology happening, at the metabolism (as he said 'anabolism' where it is breakdown of molecules to fuel the whole thing), while catabolism is building stuff..but one does not go without the other...we can't just break down stuff (to make ATP cell energy to keep them alive), building/synthesis/mitosis/repair (DNA) has to happen too. They are both part of aging. Physics just the dynamics/kinetics of it all happening; biology is the whole process of body aging; we might not be able to changes the random entropic element of physic laws of nature.....but on biology, that, we can do something about.
''It is a multibillion dollar miss-understanding to believe that the resolution of any or all age associated diseases will reveal information on the underlying aging process.''
I agree....quite true....I mean they do reveal 'some' infos...but the problem is not that, the problem is 'no action' 'no acting on it'....they don't 'take it upon themselves' to 'Follow-Up' ...make a followup on the passive 'informative' data found...it's not active...active means you must make a therapy build something about it/do something about it, not let it hang out there as 'more data piling' in the medical litterature. I mean, how mannnyy Calorie Restriction (CR) studies are there....they keep coming...passive info...everybody knows CR...they just got do it...but that's whtat it is...'action/act on it'...you find that CR does something good..well start doing CR in your life//act on it. Or you know, build a therapy or something. There are many ventures happening but Tons of studies happen adn are 'research for reasearch' infos...goes nowhere. That, is a dead-end/'cul-de-sac' in my language. The studies have to Lead (On) to Something...like some avenues/opportunities to build something tangible/concrete; a therapy a service a supplement...soemthing... ...A Cure. I would wager that the ratio of passive vs active is 6.66:3.33, thus there is 2thirds that are passive/exploring biology some more, and there is a third active/doing/building.
We can explore the biology and 'space' universe...forever...but we can't because clock ticking (down). We are trying to 'Buy (ourselves) time'. This knowledge does buy us some more time if we put it to good use; but that means making the best of it; which is building something that stops our aging, not endlessly 'wandering/wondering' in the space microcosm of our body.
It's the old 'when push comes to shove'. If we don't shove (it) and only do small push...well small push = small yield/low gain = never solve aging = 100% assured you die before/or at max 120-130.
Is that all there is to it?
''The tyranny of the phrase "research on aging" could apply to almost any human institution''
That's deep. And, once more I agree, there really is a sort of tyranny; that's the word in brackets ''tyranny''...there is no tyrant stopping you (well maybe there is, aging itself/death is the tyrant + Big Pharma (wanting to make cash/as a business) + Health bodies (fda/healthcanada) + people who think longevity is 'boring' and that they will be never healthy - or if they will be healthy; they want to live 120 or less, tops; so they spit on much longer life, they just wanne die after a century 'tehy had enough' of living). 120 is too long for some, it just is that way. Eternal Life 'given free' is bad for them. A Limited Life is Better,,. + Ethics/they will say a short life is better/better ofor overpopulatoin/drough/resources lacking/any kind of reason excuse to say 'death is good/ending is good - would you want to 'never end'? Who wants that?? 'you began and you will end (end of story)'''. And sure enough, as he said, the tyranny of research (for researching) of aging....and it is in almost all intistution, indeed. But that is because aging is impermanent, it is Permanence and Impermanence, both. And also, Imperative (to fix). All of Us Age, hence all of us Are Concerned -and Touched by it, it concerns all, all humanity, every single human living in this second of this moment on this earth. It is Personal, to all, because we all have 1 body, and 1 life. And if we don't stop aging, 1 death, for each.
''Research on the biology of aging has become its greatest victim.''
I agree, there is true that we might barking up the wrong tree and blindly (hitting not so blind walls) going in it... but what else can be done? We are knee deep (up to our ears) in it, 6-feet deep in it (thankfully not the tomb yet), we can build future therapies that solve the damage problem and already that will lead to 'something' (better than nothing). We know the Hayflick limit, we gotta overcome it. Technically, it's impossible, but epigenetically and loopdiloop LEV and couple more tricks we might do it. We went to the moon (something impossible, supposedly), we will go onto Mars and we will defeat aging ''one small footstep for research, a giant step for humanity/life''.
"Then, why is research on the etiology of the greatest risk factor that increases vulnerability to cancer, cardiovascular disease, stroke, and Alzheimer's disease (AD), ignored?"
Because (I'd wager) the 'Aging' is 'all over the place'...with mix signals as he said...many people still 'don't buy it'...they don't buy the 'aging' thing...this is hinderance, serious one. When you have tons of people who are basically saying : 'I want to live old to 90 and then die'..what are you suppose to say...'But we will cure aging...'...people are skeptic and there has much charlatanism/snake oil sellers in the past of 'aging cures'..that did not do anything. This created mistrust, suspicion, doubt, 'spidey senses - sensing bs', 'red flags lifting up' in the avg. people.
A lot of lost hope (in the many failed clinical trials/research etc), that all compounded to make serious 'dubiousness' in people; thus, doubt. Doubt is killer for medical research, reserach tries to clear doubt by proof/results from the studies...but peolpe Still Hold On to doubt/stereotypes and archaic thoughts...about dying. Like, for example: ''It's not natural...we die...that'S natural''.
Plus, the other thing, is bureacratic red tape to make any therapy avail..it takes rich people and it takes 'going through the gauntlet' of regulation....which makes it very long and slows progress to a crawl (despite the need for being careful with having clinical trials, to avoid 'surprise' secondary effects of a mosly untested new therapy). Doubt is very important too, we need it, biogerontology needs it by tons to make sure no charlatan trying to sell you 'a fast one'. I think there is also lots of confusion in the at-large pharmaceutics...people just 'try stuff' and hope for the best.
And, also, Costs...trillions of dollars and we still have no cancer cure; we want to defeat aging, but that is holy grail/costly.. if we defeat it we might defeat cancer too since related.
''In these modern efforts there seems to be little understanding that there is an enormous difference between the molecular biology of what determines the longevity of life forms and what causes their aging.''
Well, I agree partly there, molecular biology is intrinsically related to aging/longevity...to say otherwise is kind of 'tourner autour du pot' (turning around the pot/going in circles), longevity is driven by many elements, but we know which ones have more impact than others; like say,
eye drusen vs lipofuscin in lysosomes...there is a difference between the two; one has impact on longevity, the other not so much. The Key: is zoning on it/tackling it...and doing just like these animals that live centuries...they are a PROOF of living for centuries...I don't know what more of answer we would see/base ourself on. The Whole Purpose of Longevity - Is Living for Centuries...not dying, of aging/diseases (intrinsic body aging - not talking of extrinsic death by accident/homicide)....We have Existing Animals that live much longer than us; we might not be able to transcend all their mechanisms; but if we can adapt 'some' of them somehow..then it was worth it. The fact that we can see 'some' of these mechanisms in CR and in long-live animals...means we are on the right track, just need more/better/preciser; his Hayflick limit, is a limit, but does not mean we can't do anything about it; it might limit our life; but we will 'overcome it/circumvent it'. Our life depends on it.
''There is a general failure to understand that manipulating the genome or anabolic processes in living forms which may increase longevity, or cure a disease, tells us nothing about the dysfunctional or missing molecules that characterize the catabolic process of aging. Research on the biogerontology of aging is unique because of the common belief that the goal is to interfere or manipulate the process.''
Catabolism is not an unbreakable thing, it will be deciphered. It does not matter to put Too much time on etiology, etiology is not currently the most important, what is important is ,buying time.
Whether Causal or Correlational is not so much what matters (for now), what matters is being alive - to then find out whatever etiologic matters. Alive = Do stuff, Not Alive = Gone.
''which may increase longevity''
May is a strong word here, it may increase longevity, the better apt word is it - will.
May is just doubt, will is assured/it's happening'. It might/may never happen but we have to keep higher hopes/optimism and (a dose of realism) tell ourselves that we can reach that milestone, the more we talk about it and annoy people about it; the more we will get the message through.
''The availability of funds for age-associated disease research is several orders of magnitude greater than what is available for research on the fundamental biology of their greatest risk factor''
True that, that is sad beyond belief, but diseases are what people are 'ok with'...don't talk of longevity/lifespan...for them that is bs and 'unnatural' Unethical...etc. etc...most people don't think they will reach 90...they can't fathom living over 100-120....so imagine saying :'We can live 400...' they would laugh...'outlandish bs`'....the collective mind of people is still 'we die one day'...try changing 1000s years of collective human mind : 'you age you die'....it's hard. People are stubborn in their ways (not necessarily a bad thing) it's just that, we still age during that time.
Grim Reaper don't care, clock ticking down to countdown showdown (the final one). Just the other day on 'DailyMail' (UK tabloid) tons of people were like, on a new scientifc research' about agign...the comments? summed up: ''total bollocks...bullsh....these crazy scientists and snakeoil peddlers peddling pseudoscience have lots of time on their hands...and will die like everyone else''. That's what people are saying grossomodo! Like....how can you reason...with them
I mean...it's sad...''people's gonna hate/haters be haters''.
''The resolution of any age-associated disease has not in the past, nor will it in the future, improve our understanding of the etiology of aging. A century ago, the leading cause of death in old age was pneumonia, often called "the old man's friend" (with its sexist overtones). Pneumonia is no longer one of the leading causes of death in old age and its resolution did not advance our knowledge of the cause of aging. Nor will the resolution of any other age-associated pathology.''
Here we go again with etiology...ethics...too much time on that; causation correlation important...but what more important is fixing aging while alive. causation or not. True, pneumonia resolution did not advance our understanding of the causes...but we resolved it; I think that is incredible despite not knowing Everything like ever cause...of it...does not matter now. Later, it can matter (when we live on), not now. The resolution of a pathology and aging itself, is the single grandest accomplishment in humanity...the causes are important of course...but not what only matters. Living is what matters. We'll have plenty of time to figure them out..or if not...doesn't matter either because the important is life. We can't Undesrtand Everything about life, about complex things, about entropy, about cells, about the higgs boson, about if God exists...about a ton of other things..but we can buy ourselves time to figure them, maybe; later later. That is better than Eternal Torpor/Eternal Death (once you are gone, there is no more 'pondering' on those matters; you are but nothing/non-existence, forever).
Just a 2 cents (probably my longest one ever, sorry lengthy).
This is quite rambling commentary; the length of it shows your passion for longevity.
Tentatively accepting that everyone will die, it is better to die later than sooner. After 100 years, 1000, or one million ,or trillion or quintillion years. The important point is : although many people think they have "free will" , no one now can choose how long to live before I/you/they die, so everyone's "free will" is severely limited by forces/laws of nature.
Indefinite life extension will give more "freedom" if they freely and willfully choose it.