Stem Cell Brain Implants Could 'Slow Aging and Extend Life,' Study Shows (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Scientists have slowed down the aging process by implanting stem cells into the brains of animals, raising hopes for new strategies to combat age-related diseases and extend the human lifespan. Implants of stem cells that make fresh neurons in the brain were found to put the brakes on aging in older mice, keeping them more physically and mentally fit for months, and extending their lives by 10-15% compared to untreated animals. The work, described as a tour de force and a breakthrough by one leading expert, suggests that aging across the body is controlled by stem cells that are found in the hypothalamus region of the brain in youth, but which steadily die off until they are almost completely absent in middle age. Researchers at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York hope to launch clinical trials of the procedure soon, but must first produce supplies of human neural stem cells in the lab which can be implanted into volunteers. The study has been published in the journal Nature.

Comments

I'm glad they're doing the research.

[Nutria]

But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[interkin3tic]

A lot of those costs are due to things the process could possibly fix. TFS mentions it keeps them physically and mentally fit longer. Care for elderly who are mentally unable to care for themselves is obviously quite a bit more difficult (read: expensive). Someone who can ring the bell when they need help getting to the toilet may be a burden, but it's vastly better than someone who can't.

Same with the physically fit part. If this implant lets your parent walk up and down the stairs, that's much better than if they can't.

Cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes and a lot of other medical conditions are still going to be expensive, sure, but solving for assisted or total care would still dramatically reduce costs.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[skids]

This isn't just life extension it is quality of life extension. And yes it is a great idea. Might even reduce costs by increasing the odds that people will get hit by a truck before they need expensive care.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[jandersen]

But, given the population and the cost of geriatric medicine to the economy, is extending human life that much of a good idea?

The point is not to extend the time you hang around being in poor health, but to give people a longer, healthy (and productive) life. There are reasons to believe that one of the key reasons for our species' success was the fact that we started having grandparents about 30K years ago: https://www.theguardian.com/sc... - grandparents not only give those of childbearing age more freedom to gather food etc, they were probably crucial in establishing bonds with other tribes, thus providing an important precondition for a larger society and eventually civilisation. Now-a-days, I think living healthy lives for longer has obvious bebefits - caring for a frail, elderly population is expensive for any society, but taking the frailty out of the equation not only means a great cost saving, it also adds years in which people contribute to society.

Re:I'm glad they're doing the research.

[interkin3tic]

Fertility rates in developing countries are already falling.

And it's not exactly an unsolvable problem anyway. Have the government send birth control over there. Women will use it. Want to decrease it further? Have the government work to fund schools for women over there.

Lotta dudes online seem to think the people they don't care much for are just bound and determined to reproduce like bunnies no matter what and are totally befuddled as to why people they do care for are reproducing slightly slower. It's really not hard, nor does it require horrors like raising their standard of living up to ours in all other ways.