Slashdot Mirror
Contest To Sequence Centenarians Kicks Off
ananyo writes "The first competitor has swaggered up to the starting line for a contest that aims to push the limits of genome-sequencing technology. The X Prize Foundation of Playa Vista, California, is offering a US$10 million prize to the first team to accurately sequence the genomes of 100 people aged 100 or older, for $1,000 or less apiece and within 30 days. Ion Torrent, part of Life Technologies of Carlsbad, California, believes that its semiconductor-based technology gives it a shot, and on 23 July it announced that it will compete. The Archon Genomics X Prize competition, to be held in September 2013, is intended to spur technology, boost accuracy and drive down costs — currently $3,000–5,000 per genome. Peter Diamandis, the X Prize Foundation's chief executive, says that the contest will help to establish a standard for a 'medical grade' genome, with the high accuracy needed to diagnose or treat a patient. This time, the X prize Foundation has relaxed the time frame, allowing competitors 30 days — rather than the 10 specified by the 2006 contest — and focused on centenarians, who might carry gene variants promoting longevity. The winning team will be the first to sequence all 100 genomes to 98% completion, with less than one error per million base pairs, and to determine which variants appear on which of the paired chromosomes."
Hopefully, they all told truth about their age and their age was double-checked, triple-checked, and quadruple-checked in different ways before they were selected for this study.
Increasing longevity would presumably increase the useful working life of a person too. That increases taxes. Every year you get out of a person before they retire is another nine months they can "live for free" once they do retire (think about it - you work for, say, 45 years and you're retired for, what? 20-30?). Assuming that longevity also brings increase in health and working ages (which historically it has done - people used to die before they reached 30, now 65 is the retirement age!)
As people get live longer, they also feel less need to breed immediately. This means fewer children, more widely spaced. This is why women are now putting off having children until into their thirties while a few generations ago that was impossible and they were more likely pregnant before 20. This, however, means that not only are there fewer children to support, but fewer working adults to support the generation about them later on (so it's 50-50).
But there are numerous unquantifiable side-benefits. Living longer as an individual means that things like scientific research can go on for longer. We don't lose talent just through old-age. We keep geniuses around who have 50+ years experience of quantum physics, who can teach the next generation. This also means better education, better research, but comes at the cost of longer-held positions, less job opportunities, and longer time spent in education.
So, basically, it's not an all-lose situation. Longevity has been increasing for centuries, if not millennia. It has advantages and disadvantages that, on the whole, balance out and even provide "profit".
The problem we have is not longevity, per se - it's failing to adequately save for that retirement when working, and stopping working too early because we've hit an arbitrary age. The UK health system is also set up to encourage people to not save for private healthcare, which can be a problem when it comes to an ageing population (but I wouldn't give it up for the world, despite all the problems with it!) - other systems fare better under this sort of strain.
Longer lives do not mean longer retirements, necessarily. If it works out, it means longer working life, shorter retirements, better pension coverage and MORE tax, not less.
Given all this, why is increasing longevity a good thing? How does it help society? Taxes cannot be paid by people who don't work.
It should actually be possible to save money, since people would need to spend a smaller fraction of their life in formal education, as opposed to paid work. This only requires 1) an increase in healthy life expectancy, and 2) the retirement age is increased accordingly.
inherited state (Lamarck wasn't totally wrong, it seems) and life history changes to the gene expression may matter as much, or more, than the raw nuclear and mitochondrial sequence.
anyone know of a low-cost tool to capture that data?
This isn't a troll, this is how many rational, educated people in government think about the elderly problem. Let's have some real discussion instead of burying real-world opinions with which we disagree.
So I assume these rational and educated people, after they retire, they would live in a small flat for a few years and would happily give their lives away to save money for the goverment? I don't think that's the case dude. Working for the better part of your life, and when you can't work you should die? Well if you support that, start with your parents. Let us know how that goes :)
In the UK recently, the elderly are "selfishly" (not my words, the government's) continuing to occupy family homes judged to be too large for them. There has been a drive to confiscate old people's houses as they have too many bedrooms, and multiple families could be housed in the same place.
Isn't that what real estate property tax is for? To drive out the elderly from property that has increased in value?
Of course, if you live in California with proposition 13, that's no longer how it works anymore.
"Increasing longevity would presumably increase the useful working life of a person too."
65 year old: Doctor, I'm here for my pre-retirement check.
Doctor: One moment, I have to give you this shot first. (gives him the needle)
65 year old: What was that for?
Doctor: Well, it's good news and bad news.
65 year old: How come?
Doctor: Well, the good news is that you will now live to a ripe age of 500 years!
65 year old: And the bad news?
Doctor: Well, you have to go back to work for the next 420 years!
Solving a societal problem by the death of people who are causing the problem is contrary to what our society is about.
This is the less trollish and flamebait answer I can find. If our social model does not allow for older people who want to live to survive longer, it is a sign that we must change our social model. I agree that higher longevity will cause troubles, but these are solvable problems. If we didn't accept to change our societies to improve them, we would still have slaves, routine torture of prisoners, death penalty (sorry if you live in US) and no labor laws.
I know that my grandfather would have happily given all his belongings to get a few more years with his new friends, so surely, there is a solution.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Well, with the same logic, why not kill all those who are unemployed, sick, in prison, not contributing anything worthwhile to society, .... ...
Instead of spending money on shitty countries in Africa, why not kill them all? Less HIV, less famine, less pollution, less immigrants,
Would solve a lot of problems, wouldn't it?
Or we could also kill all the Mexicans. After all, that would solve the drug wars.
Or kill all the Arabs or the Israelis. Either one would solve most if not all the problems in the Middle East.
You've definitely convinced me. That's certainly how rational, educated people in government think.
Also of course living (much) longer means long space journeys and ultimately colonization becomes more likely.
Being able to take a much longer view for big projects could open up all sorts of new opportunities that don't get much attention these days since people generally like to live long enough to see the fruits of their labours.
Well, some people would consider that twice the good news. I know I would.
Ezekiel 23:20
From a societal standpoint, it's not good to have elderly around
Evolution proves you wrong. The elderly are a store of knowledge and wisdom that the young can't possibly have, except when imparted by the elderly.
For example, they'll tell you things that the history books neglect. Example: the RoaringTwenties. The history books say it was a prosperous decade. My grandmother, who was born in 1903, disagreed. It was indeed a boom time -- for the rich. Everyone else was struggling.
When you get older you see the tides change and the pendulum swing. Those in their twenties would think that we're on the edge of doom, but things always change. The tides go up, the tides go down.
It's only the old people's selfishness that makes them want to live in such extravagant surroundings
Yet it's ok for a young rich couple to live in a mansion? Sounds hypocritical to me.
The elderly consume fantastically large amounts of healthcare to allow them to live to such an advanced age
I'm 60 and haven't been to a doctor in five years. My dad's 80, and he's been only a few times in the last decade. Health care doesn't keep one alive until age 100, good genes do. Note the Frederick Pohl is still writing, in his nineties. What about the young man who gets a bullet in the spine in Afghanistan? Just kill him, too? Sorry, son, but you sound like a heartless bastard, and not very bright, either, and completely lacking in wisdom.
When you approach my age, be assured that your opinion will change. Maybe... there are old fools, after all. But most fools die young.
Free Martian Whores!
The harsh truth about old people is that supply exceeds demand. For example in the US there are now only about 2 workers paying into Social Security for each retiree, much lower than what was intended for the system to work.
The system would almost certainly have remained solvent while this structural issue sorted itself out (read:the baby boomers all died off) if the congress-critters were able to resist keeping their greedy little fingers out of it's fund for more than five minutes.
In any event though, anti-senescence research could actually fix this in the long term. If we can start eliminating the negative effects of aging people won't need to retire as early.