Slashdot Mirror


Aging Reversed In Mice

Hugh Pickens writes "The Guardian reports that scientists claim to be a step closer to reversing the aging process after experimental treatment developed by researchers at Harvard Medical School turned weak and feeble old mice into healthy animals by regenerating their aged bodies. 'What we saw in these animals was not a slowing down or stabilization of the aging process. We saw a dramatic reversal – and that was unexpected,' says Ronald DePinho, who led the study. The Harvard group focused on a process called telomere shortening where each time a cell divides, the telomeres are snipped shorter, until eventually they stop working and the cell dies or goes into a suspended state called 'senescence.' Researchers bred genetically manipulated mice that lacked an enzyme called telomerase that stops telomeres getting shorter causing the mice to age prematurely and suffer ailments, including a poor sense of smell, smaller brain size, infertility and damaged intestines and spleens. When the mice were given injections to reactivate the enzyme, it repaired the damaged tissues and reversed the signs of aging raising hope among scientists that it may be possible to achieve a similar feat in humans – or at least to slow down the aging process."

11 of 554 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Do not want by Zapotek · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd like to thank you on behalf of those of us who want to live forever...making room for the immortals if awfully kind of you.

  2. Re:Quality, not quantity by Kokuyo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're an engineer, aren't you?

    You go: Well, a lot of our problems come from lack of excercise and bad diet. So... we need to tweak our bodies to no longer be troubled by that.

    Personally, I'd prefer to see a social and economic reevaluation, that just plain leaves you more time and resources to live a more healthy life in the first place.

    Being able to take the time to do these things the usual way would mean a proportional decrease in stress on top of the healthier living.

    So in short: Instead of fixing what is broken, make it so it doesn't break in the first place.

  3. Re:Do not want by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't consider this to make people to last forever, but 'unnecessarily long'.

    What do you consider a necessary duration? And necessary for what? There is no objective purpose to life - people have to ascribe their own subjective meaning - whatever you think is necessary during your own life is you own subjective value judgement and doesn't apply to anyone else.

    we are 'out-breeding' our ability to be able produce enough food ... putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me.

    This is a potential problem, but it presumes that technology won't be able to keep up with demand. There is mounting economic pressure (which makes all the difference) to create a renewable infrastructure now. It's only a matter of time. The more people there are, the greater the pressure. People would be able to work for longer, and would be under less pressure to have kids early. There is a large degree of self-correction to the situation, but it's one of those difficult to predict scenarios, becuase it's such a collosal global game-changing event.

    Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare.

    I honestly have never understood this attitude. People say it, but never give a reason. Why? You say you love life, so when would that change for you? At what point do you become effectively suicidal? Are you anticipating an afterlife?

    --
    (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
  4. Re:Quality, not quantity by soundguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Speak for yourself. I want to live forever.

    You're a 20-something, aren't you? Come back and say that in another half a century. Life isn't all that "must-have" after a bunch of decades, even if you're in perfect health. The main problem is that after numerous years of life-experience, you start realizing what unbelievable sacks of shit most people truly are. If YOU get to live forever, you're going to have to deal with THEM forever too.

    --
    Nothing worthwhile ever happens before noon
  5. Re:Do not want by Khyber · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "we are 'out-breeding' our ability to be able produce enough food"

    Says you. I actually work in the field, and we have well more than enough technology, raw seed stock, and modified seed stock, to feed this planet fifty times over for the next twenty generations.

    "our main energy source is finite (oil), and our climate seems to be going through changes (i don't care if they're man-made or not),"

    These actually pose real problems that we must work upon.

    "putting more people on this rock with drastically increased lifespans don't seem to be sch a bright idea to me."

    Well, odds are this would only be available to those that could afford it, while the general masses die off. While this leaves a lower population to sustain the planetary population overall, there's also a lower planetary population to handle. Thinking of a worst-case scenario, this would be like giving those hard working and intelligent enough a pass at a super-long life, while eliminating the unwashed masses. That poses another problem, but everything is a problem, and in truth nothing is a total solution.

    "Besides, think a bit what it would be like to live forever, it's a nightmare."

    I've been dead twice. I think I prefer life, TYVM.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  6. Re:Quality, not quantity by Krneki · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Speak for yourself. I want to live forever.

    You're a 20-something, aren't you? Come back and say that in another half a century. Life isn't all that "must-have" after a bunch of decades, even if you're in perfect health. The main problem is that after numerous years of life-experience, you start realizing what unbelievable sacks of shit most people truly are. If YOU get to live forever, you're going to have to deal with THEM forever too.

    You die when you stop enjoying life.

    The more I love life, the more beautiful people I meet.

    I'm sorry that you lost the love for living.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  7. Re:Do not want by houghi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If the memory of you is passed on through generations, you do live forever.

    Uh, sorry, but no, you don't. The memory lives on, not the person. If that is important to those who live on is another matter. But please do not confuse the two.

    Toutankhamon is not alive. insert dead parrot sketch

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  8. Re:Do not want by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You are missing a point by the way, an important point.

    People, who are short-lived, do not care about the long term consequences. It's like politicians, who are elected only for a few years and all they try to do is to get reelected, they don't care about actually working that much. Same with non-owners of corporations, who are nevertheless on top of them, like seagull CEOs for example, they come in, make a lot of noise, crap all over the place, collect the severance and leave.

    People who live longer than our very limited life-spans, and people who have more active life-styles by being healthier, would probably end up thinking a bit more long-term, which may end up being good for the population in the long run.

    I do not buy the argument that the natural order of things is GOOD. I think the natural order is actually pretty bad, considering that evolution basically cares about procreation first of all, doesn't care about your quality of life past certain age-point, so it elects the traits in populations that are better suited for the young people, not for those who are maybe 20 years older than 'the young'. But in today's society being 20 years older than 'the young' also has a positive effect (well, with some). They are experienced, they are very knowledgeable and specialized, they are trained, a lot of resources went to their training, they are still useful, but their health is deteriorating and they do become an increasing burden.

    If this particular treatment prolongs the life of people by say 40 years, yet makes them younger in the process, it would end up as a net positive for society, because those resources would be available longer and without the downside of being sicker.

    Basically sign me up (I am almost sure I will never see this treatment, but I would like to.)

  9. Re:Quality, not quantity by CrackedButter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm hitting 30. My ambition to live forever is stronger now than it was when I was 15. All the shit given to me over the years hasn't had an impact. You sound like you want to die because it might become depressing. The simplest answer would be to move away and live in a different part of the world for 50 years. Imagine the opportunity to do that and really start life anew?

  10. Re:Quality, not quantity by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Absolutely. Because quality of life is measured by how much you can eat in front of your computer without gaining weight.

    Since most people nowadays spend their days that way out of necessity... yes. Quality of life is increased by having your body tolerate its normal usage. It lowers your quality of life that you have to spend several hours a week running in circles and lifting weights just to keep your muscle mass from disappearing and being replaced by useless fat tissue.

    I suppose that this might violate some people's ideal of having to earn everything with sweat and blood, but hey: they're free to go jog in a snowstorm while I sit in front of my computer and eat potato chips.

    --

    Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  11. Re:Quality, not quantity by FauxPasIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe. I'm only 32, but I would definitely take the live-forever serum if it was offered to me at this point. I'm already having to snip lower-priority things off my life goals list just due to lack of time. Maybe after I'm fluent in all spoken and written languages, fully understand current mathematics and number theory, fully grok current physics, have an encyclopedic knowledge of world history, have mastered cooking, dancing, martial arts, race driving, race flying, have built a computer by hand and written a POSIX-compatible operating system in its native assembly language, have built a car by hand and raced it, have visited every culture in the world and learned their customs well enough to interact freely with them... by the time I've done all those things I have a feeling I'll have thought of a list twice as long of things yet to do, but that sounds like at least three or four hundred years I'll need before I even get through the obvious stuff, and that's if I don't spend a large amount of time just relaxing with my family (which I will).

    You seriously couldn't think of any fulfilling ways to spend a couple thousand years?

    --
    25% Funny, 25% Insightful, 25% Informative, 25% Troll