Gene therapy slows biological clock
Scientists have extended the lifespan of adult mice by boosting the activity of genes that code for the enzyme, telomerase.
Spanish National Cancer Research Centre: 15 May 2012
Ageing blood stem cells rejuvenated to be functionally younger
Inhibiting a protein involved in cell signalling in hematopoietic stem cells has reversed their ageing providing hints to the cellular mechanisms of ageing.
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital 3 May 2012
Shot of young stem cells halt ageing in mice
Mice bred to age quickly became healthier and lived two to three times longer than expected after injection with stem cell-like progenitor cells from the muscle of young animals.
University of Pittsburg School of Health Sciences: 3 January 2012
Transhumanism: are we on the brink of creating new human species?
By Jason Major
TechNyou
2011 has brought the futurists out from hiding. Humans have that wonderful capacity to think ahead and speculate and imagine about what could be. In the not-so-distant future, we envision the rise of the machines, victory over disease, ageing and injury, revolutionary transport and energy generation…and so on.
One of the more interesting and ethically challenging futuristic concepts is human enhancement where we use our advanced knowledge and technologies to tweak the human species to make it “better”. A recent paper in the last Journal of Evolution and Technology is one of a number of commentaries on this topic. Andrew Maynard also touches on this in a recent talk about risk science in the 21st Century. He outlines 5 pressure point technologies that he predicts will radically change society in the next few decades, two of these relate to human enhancement: machine-human interface and cognitive enhancers.
Transhumanism
Riding on the speculative wave of these enhancement technologies is Transhumanism, which I think I can call a cultural movement. Transhumanists appear to use reason to explore ways to improve the human condition, though “improve” is a subjective and slippery term in this context. Apparently we want to be smarter, faster, stronger, disease-free and immortal (or at least live long enough to complete the standard bucket list). And, according to the JET paper, “Transhumanists expect technological innovations to result in the emergence of several varieties of “posthumans,” defined as “future beings whose basic capacities so radically exceed those of present humans that we are unambiguously a different being. Not sure if they mean we won’t be able to interbreed?
To achieve this, transhumanists are counting on technologies that we don’t have – yet. Speculation and uncertainty are rife, but it is likely that a lot of it will be possible, some of it in our lifetime and a lot more in our children’s lifetime. And although we can sit here and make moral or ethical judgements about all this, the people who will be most affected by these technologies will likely have a radically different set of values to ours. What we see as abhorrent or unethical may struggle to raise the eyebrow of future generations.
Ethics for secondary students
For teachers of senior secondary classes it is likely you will get your students to be looking at genetics (eg, stem cells, genetic testing, gene therapies) and nanotechnologies. The tough bit is getting to think about the potential consequences of this science. Science, as you know, does not operate in a vacuum and the knowledge generated can be used many ways.
In Andrew Maynards talk he makes the point that humans are instinctively afraid of the unknown. It is an evolutionary mechanism that has served us well. In this technologically-driven world, though we are being increasingly bombarded with new stuff that we instinctively baulk at, some of it with probable cause.
Even today, we need to confront our ability to manipulate the genome to create heritable characteristics. Another is cybernetics (a convergence of nano, bio and IT) that will create technologies that can monitor, repair and enhance cognitive, physical (movement, strength, agility, etc), longevity and health.
What enhancements or therapies are acceptable?
Do we need to distinguish between what might be enhancement and therapy? Personally, I think we should drop this distinction and make the judgement case-by-case. Otherwise breast enhancements would be illegal and one could debate whether vaccination is an enhancement of the immune system.
To get deep and profound, we could consider if such radical changes will influence what it means to be human? Will we need to redefine what it means to be human? Or is this need to improve ourselves actually part of being human?
For students, the standard ethical questions to apply include the following:
- Who will benefit from these technologies, individuals, society, both, neither?
- Will anyone be harmed?
- Will there be equity of access, or will only certain privileged classes of people get access?
- Will we have the right to choose if we want access to these technologies?
A point made in the JET paper is that even if these technologies are not abused, they are likely to raise suspicions, promote political and social differentiation, and exaggerate problems that already exist.
It’s not the science
Another point I find I need to emphasise for secondary students is that it is not necessarily the technology or the knowledge that is the issue, it is how we choose to use it that is important. The knowledge generated by research into gene therapy and manipulation of the genome will lead to radical treatments for serious disease. The same knowledge might also be used to enhance our strength, agility or cognitive ability. Which, if any, application is acceptable? Are all acceptable so long as nobody is harmed? And how do we define what is harmful or beneficial?
I have made a point of this before also. Take a look at society today and our obsession or desire to stave of age by popping pills, and taking other new-age elixirs – reseveratrol being one of the latest, omega-3s being another; our willingness to go under the knife for cosmetic surgery, pop more pills for muscle growth, sex drive (ie Viagra); even line up to clone ourselves or deceased children. This alone has me predicting that if any of the suggested technologies become available their will be a queue of people willing to use them, regardless of ethical considerations.
And why shouldn’t we? Again, it comes down to the question of who benefits, who is harmed and our right to choose.
James Watson had the following to say on using genetics to enhance humans:
“But I would use it wherever you could improve human life. I think we should be able to try and improve people’s minds,” he said. “I don’t see genetics as offending the gods, I don’t think there are any gods up there.”
And if you thought this stuff was still a figment of a crusty old scientist’s imagination, this is what the research arm of the US military (DARPA) - – is up to (from JET paper):
“DARPA has engaged in a program for “Metabolic Dominance” which would “enable superior physical and physiological performance of the warfighter by controlling energy metabolism on demand” There is also a Metabolic Engineering Program, which “seeks to develop the technological basis for controlling the metabolic demands on cells, tissues, and organisms,” beginning with blood and blood products Peak performance is encouraged by devices to control body temperature, “nutriceutical” foods and “first strike rations,” and “tweaking” mitochondria to increase energy and reduce fatigue. An Augmented Cognition program has aimed to extend the ability to manage information, while the Continuous Assistance Performance (CAP) program has as its goal “to discover pharmacological and training approaches that will lead to an extension of the individual warfighter’s cognitive capability by at least 96 hours and potentially by more than 168 hours without sleep”. The soldier, in this vision, will be more focused, smarter, and have a better memory. He or she would be stronger, fast-healing, and capable of functioning for days at a time without food or sleep.
And who decides?
Who assesses the risk, the potential to manage it, what is good for society and what is not? In the old days it was some dude at the top of the pyramid who was the apparent expert. And for the most part we seemed to trust him (it was usually a him).
Now with the globalisation and the interconnected world we live in with social media, smart phone and other modern communication tools hooked up to the world the top dog is starting to lose his influence. People power is taking over. Having said that, I find it weird that the young generation of today that is embracing all this modern communication tools, yet nearly everyone school group I pose the question to about who should decide what we do with this knowledge, it is this generation that says it should be scientists, governments, kings, queens… Ah, what will happen when they truly realise the power they hold, literally, in their hands?
I wonder how the new homo species will communicate?
Muscles contain the fountain of youth
Endurance exercises such as jogging can unlock muscle stem cells and make us look younger.
Tel Aviv University 1 December 2010
Telomerase reverses ageing process
Nature News: 28 November 2010
Premature ageing can be reversed by reactivating an enzyme that protects the tips of chromosomes, a study in mice suggests.
Protecting chromosome tips doesn't just prevent ageing. It can reverse it.Peter Lansdorp/Visuals Unlimited/Corbis
Longevity gene may also boost memory
The same molecular mechanism that increases life span through calorie restriction may help boost memory and brainpower.
Eurekalert: 11 July 2010
Reference
Published in Nature 11 July
New genetic test can predict your chances of living to 100
Boston University researchers say they have uncovered the genetic markers associated with living to a ripe old age.
The Guardian: 1 July 2010
And in Scientific American
TechNyou comment
This may have interesting implications for life insurance and regulators as suggestions is that the test will be provided as a kit for free
Extending life. How long do we want to live?
How long can we live? How long do we want to live?
A series of articles in Nature explore the possibilities.
None entertain the notion of immortality, nor do they outline the ethical or societal implications of extending the human lifespan, but they do explore the recent burst of research occurring that might halt, and potentially, reverse the ageing processes that lead to age-related disease.
More than beer and bothersome
Much of what we know about ageing we have learnt from yeast, worms and flies, but the physiological pathways that control the ageing process in these animals is likely to be similar in humans. That is, these genetically-controlled pathways have been conserved through evolution. (You actually share about 66% of your genes with fruit flies.)
Party hard at 100
When this topic is raised in any TechNyou public engagement activity most people post 50-something hate the thought of drooling on their shoes for longer than necessary. But then few of the cherish the thought of death. The bonus with this research is that you can forget the decrepitude aspect of ageing as this research aims to get us to our moment of mortality in a healthier state. Indeed one of the Nature papers in this series suggests most people born since the year 2000 will live to be 100.
Beyond 100
For now nutrition and environmental influences are key to good health and longevity. There are a growing number of drugs being trialled to enhance this already. Resveratrol is one, and although not a drug, restricting your calorie intake is another way, and one of the few with robust science behind it, of living longer.
Extending our years further requires understanding the role of genes and stem cells in the ageing process. It is likely this is where the real advances will be made, though probably not in my lifetime, which will save me thinking about a second career, worrying about a late-life crisis, or wondering if my superannuation will last 40 years instead of the planned 20.
….Unless Ray Kurzweil’s prediction that immortality is mere decades away.
More info
SENS – human regenerative engineering
Happy Easter and live long and prosper
Jason
TechNyou
Stem cell immortality mystery solved
Researchers have found a gene that is a key to embryonic stem cells’ ability to remain immortal.
Eurekalert: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-03/nioa-nrf032210.php
Reference
Research done at the US National Institute on Aging (NIA), part of the National Institutes of Health and the research was published in Nature.
Zalzman et al. Zscan4 regulates telomere elongation and genomic stability in ES cells. Nature, 2010; DOI: 10.1038/nature08882