|
February 2005 Do You Want to Live Forever?Continued from page 2 By Sherwin Nuland
De Grey calls his program Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, which permits him to say that it makes SENS to embark upon it. Here, in no particular order, follow his seven horsemen of death and the formulations for the breaking of each animal and its rider. (Those seeking more detailed information might wish to consult de Grey's website: www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/index.html.) 1. Loss and atrophy or degeneration of cells. This element of aging is particularly important in tissues where cells cannot replace themselves as they die, such as the heart and brain. De Grey would treat it primarily by the introduction of growth factors to stimulate cell division or by periodic transfusion of stem cells specifically engineered to replace the types that have been lost. 2. Accumulation of cells that are not wanted. These are (a) fat cells, which tend to proliferate and not only replace muscle but also lead to diabetes by diminishing the body's ability to respond to the pancreatic hormone insulin, and (b) cells that have become senescent, which accumulate in the cartilage of our joints. Receptors on the surface of such cells are susceptible to immune bodies that de Grey believes scientists will in time learn how to generate, or to other compounds that may make the cells destroy themselves without affecting others that do not have those distinctive receptors. 3. Mutations in chromosomes. The most damaging consequence of cell mutation is the development of cancer. The immortality of cancer cells is related to the behavior of the telomere, the caplike structure found on the end of every chromosome, which decreases in length each time the cell divides and therefore seems to be involved with the cell's mortality. If we could eliminate the gene that makes telomerase -- the enzyme that maintains and lengthens telomeres -- the cancer cell would die. De Grey's solution for this problem is to replace a person's stem cells every 10 or so years with ones engineered not to carry that gene. 4. Mutations in mitochondria. Mitochondria are the micromachines that produce energy for the cell's activities. They contain small amounts of DNA, which are particularly susceptible to mutations since they are not housed in the chromosomes of the nucleus. De Grey proposes copying the genes (of which there are 13) from the mitochondrial DNA and then putting those copies into the DNA of the nucleus, where they will be far safer from mutation-causing influences. 5. The accumulation of "junk" within the cell. The junk in question is a collection of complex material that results from the cell's breakdown of large molecules. Intracellular structures called lysosomes are the primary microchambers for such breakdown; the junk tends to collect in them, causing problems in the function of certain types of cells. Atherosclerosis, hardening of the arteries, is the biggest manifestation of these complications. To solve this difficulty, de Grey proposes to provide the lysosomes with genes to produce the extra enzymes required to digest the unwelcome material. The source of these genes will be certain soil bacteria, an innovation based on the observation that ground that contains buried animal flesh does not show accumulation of degraded junk. 6. The accumulation of "junk" outside the cell. The fluid in which all cells are bathed -- called extracellular fluid -- may come to contain aggregates of protein material that it is incapable of breaking down. The result is the formation of a substance called amyloid, which is the material found in the brains of people with AlzĀheimer's disease. To counter this, de Grey proposes vaccination with an as-yet undeveloped substance that might stimulate the immune system to produce cells to engulf and eat the offending material. 7. Cross-links in proteins outside the cell. The extracellular fluid contains many flexible protein molecules that exist unchanged for long periods of time, whose function is to give certain tissues such qualities as elasticity, transparence, or high tensile strength. Over a lifetime, occasional chemical reactions gradually affect these molecules in ways that change their physical and/or chemical qualities. Among these changes is the development of chemical bonds called cross-links between molecules that had previously moved independently of one another. The result is a loss of elasticity or a thickening of the involved tissue. If the tissue is the wall of an artery, for example, the loss of distensibility may lead to high blood pressure. De Grey's solution to this problem is to attempt to identify chemicals or enzymes capable of breaking cross-links without injuring anything else. It must be obvious that, even condensed and simplified as they are here, these seven factors are enormously complex biological problems with even more complex proposed solutions. At least some of those solutions may prove inadequate, and others may be impossible to implement. Moreover, de Grey's descriptions are sprinkled with such vague phrases as "growth factors" and "stimulate the immune system," which might prove to be little more than slogans, as when he invokes yet-to-be-discovered "chemicals or enzymes capable of breaking cross-links without injuring anything else." In addition, it must be emphasized that researchers have not come close to solving a single one of the seven problems. In the case of several, there have been promising results. Indeed, research on extracellular cross-links has already yielded several drug candidates: a company called Alteon, in Parsippany, NY, has begun clinical trials of molecules that it says can reverse the effects of some conditions associated with age. In the cases of some of the other problems de Grey identifies, however -- such as the prevention of telomere lengthening or the transfer of mitochondrial DNA to the nucleus -- it is fair to say that molecular biologists can only speculate about the day, if ever, when these attempts will come to fruition. But de Grey is unfazed by this incompleteness. It is his thesis that time is being lost, and nothing is accomplished by pessimism about possibilities. For de Grey, "pie in the sky," as one biogeronĀtologist I consulted called his formulations, is a tasty delicacy whose promise already nourishes his soul. But others can challenge de Grey's science. My purpose was something else entirely. I found myself wondering what sort of man would devote the labors of an incandescently brilliant mind and a seemingly indefatigable constitution to such a project. Not only does the science seem more than a little speculative, but even more speculative is the assumption on which the entire undertaking is based -- namely, that it is a good thing for the men and women now populating the earth to have the means to live indefinitely. |


Comments
Guest (Eddie Zeng) on 11/22/2005 at 10:38 AM
1
Guest (gobbeldy BEEEEP!!!) on 07/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Josh McNeil) on 12/06/2005 at 8:56 PM
1
My email adress is jhmc_07@hotmail.com
I hope to hear from yu soon regarding this topic.
Thank you, Sincerely yours
Josh McNeil
Guest (j keith) on 12/16/2005 at 10:47 PM
1
Guest (Peter Miller) on 01/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Infinity) on 01/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Joe) on 04/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
thewizard on 03/08/2008 at 1:37 PM
3
(NO INSULT INTENDED). I AM 78 AND HAVE BOTH TRAINING IN THEOLOGY (MINISTER FOR 41 YEARS) AS WELL AS IN QUANTUM PHYSICS. I AM CONDUCTING A FIVE
WEEK SEMINAR END OF MAY, WHERE I COACH PEOPLE HOW
TO BE 10-30 YEARS YOUNGER AND EXTEND THEIR LIFE FOR 10-30 YEARS. ALL BASED ON QUANTUM PHYSICS. THOSE MEDICAL SCIENTISTS DO RESEARCH ON ANIMALS,
I DO THE REAL THING - REJUVENATION AND LIFE EXTENSION IN YOUTHFUL EXUBERANCE NOT 20-30 YEARS
FROM TODAY, BUT IN MAY 0F 2008,
Karoly Fuevessy,
fountainofyouthwizard@gmail.com
tonyreno on 05/07/2008 at 5:13 AM
4
We do have a problem with people wanting things that they are unwilling to work hard enough to earn. But when people do decide to do the work there's plenty there for many more people, many many times as many people are there are there now.
It take a little more work to get better at living renewably, but we are already far better at it than our much vaunted ancestors.
Also keep in mind that not-dying does not add to the population. Not-dying only keeps the population the same.
It was a stupid ending to the article. You have to read way way way between the lines to find some reason why not dying is a bad thing. It's like calling up, down. Not-dying staying young is one of those things that only a person with no imagination at all could favor.
Now if you want to extend that argument to not having children (I don't, by the way) then you might have an argument. But there is no argument made anywhere in the article that made any sensible connection between staying young and the world somehow getting worse for that.
Guest (f.leblanc) on 01/01/2006 at 9:25 PM
1
Thanks for ur article. hope u followup on some of the ethical issues involved.
thewizard on 03/08/2008 at 1:54 PM
3
AND IN ADDITION I AM CONDUCTING A FIVE WEEK SEMINAR ON HOW TO EXTEND YOUR LIFE 10, 20, 30 YEARS THIS COMING MAY/2008. ETHICS? WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF ETHICS ANYWAY. UNETHICAL IS TO DIE. IF YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THE BIBLE OR TORA, YOU WOULD NOT BRING UP ETHICS.
Karoly Fuevessy,
fountainofyouthwizard@gmail.com
Guest (N.B.) on 05/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Anyway, not only that, but would the cells survive it? taking the simple exsample of trying to clean a stain out, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, sometimes the stain spreads and sometimes you ruin the cloth...
so much more to say, but it would go too far... anyway, incase you want to reply, my adress is GothicDray@web.de
Guest (Dave) on 05/26/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
thewizard on 03/08/2008 at 1:47 PM
3
REPLY OF 03/08/08. I AM NOT A GERENTOLOGIST OR
MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL (THEY HOPE TO ETEND LIFE IN 20-30 YEARS). THE STORY OF "THE ELEPHANT AND THE
FIVE BLIND MEN", DESCRIBES THE MEDICAL SCIENTISTS
WELL. I AM CONDUCTING END OF MAY A FIVE WEEK
SEMINAR, WHERE I REJUVENATE PARTICIPANTS 10-30
YEARS IN REAL TIME NOW, NOT IN 20-30 YEARS.
Karoly Fuevessy,
fountainofyouthwizard@gmail.com
jiggaj on 08/04/2008 at 3:14 PM
1
tonyreno on 05/07/2008 at 5:18 AM
4
Unlike cloths, cells have 2 big advantages over everything else. With the exeception of brain cells, almost every other type of cell need only take an inventory, find the cells in the best shape, reproduce those, and kill off the others.
There's nothing scientifically impossible about reversing aging. In fact, if it were impossible people would be unable to have children, or your childred would all be born with all the age damage that we have.
It is a hard problem, but I don't think it is nearly as difficult for our technology, given de Grey's engineering approach, as it was for the 60s technology to make it to the moon.
Guest (J.c.) on 12/19/2005 at 4:26 AM
1
Guest (Josh McNeil) on 12/06/2005 at 8:56 PM
1
My email adress is jhmc_07@hotmail.com
I hope to hear from yu soon regarding this topic.
Thank you, Sincerely yours
Josh McNeil
Guest (Craig Bruce) on 01/18/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Eric) on 01/31/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Dr.keyvan Abasi , M.D. / Ph.D.) on 02/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
" Technology of Taught "
if you have please ?
i'm keen interested in this case
if you can help me to get more information then i'd appreciate you
yours faithfully Dr keiyvan
Guest ( Dr keiyvan) on 02/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
" Technology of Taught "
by email to :
NJ_SHAH14@YAHOO.COM
Guest (patrick) on 02/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Mel) on 02/06/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
point out all potential risks and that is good, assume failure in managing such risks and that is ignorance or, in case of informed people, plain malvolance.
Guest (Jim G) on 04/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jairo Barbosa) on 05/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Kathy Rusniak) on 05/19/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Markus) on 06/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
We have and always will create technological monsters with horrible potential, but they don't outweigh all the good solutions that we have created as well.
Progress will continue and indeed I believe one thing that makes us human is our hope that we can improve ourselves and our surroundings.
Guest (David J) on 06/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Jeff) on 06/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Frank Smith) on 06/10/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Yossi) on 06/12/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
This is what G-d originally and always intended for all humankind: So that He could "dwell", so to say, in this physical world, together with us. We need to show Him (and also, perhaps mainly ourselves) that we are really, truly worthy of His wonderful GIFT of life, that He continually grants us and the entire Universe every instant. All that He wants from us that we should be eternally grateful and show a little respect for ourselves and creation.
Let all Creation please thank the Only One True G-d Almighty for every single breath...
Guest (me) on 07/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Guest (Reaon) on 07/28/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
Email ReaonIam@hotmail.com for discussion, but not about religion.
thanx
Guest (jmviggi) on 08/07/2006 at 12:00 AM
1
PEACE
jak177 on 08/17/2006 at 9:03 AM
1
MKM