Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Can Aging Be Solved?

Gerontology pioneer Leonard Hayflick discusses the biological causes of aging.

By Emily Singer

Wednesday, July 01, 2009

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

At the World Congress of Gerontology and Geriatrics later this week in Paris, amid sessions on Alzheimer's disease, elderly care, and osteoporosis is a session provocatively titled "Ageing Is No Longer an Unsolved Biological Problem." It's organized by Leonard Hayflick, a professor of anatomy at the University of California, San Francisco.

Credit: UCSF

In the 1960s, Hayflick discovered that human cells grown in a dish will multiply a finite number of times--a property now known as the Hayflick Limit. These cells later helped ignite the search for the cellular sources of aging, and Hayflick, a former president of the Gerontological Society of America, has since become well known for his skepticism toward claims that human longevity can be significantly lengthened through science.

Hayflick spoke with Technology Review about his theory for the biological causes of aging and explains why he thinks that research directed at the fundamental processes of aging will yield greater returns than studying diseases of aging, such as Alzheimer's and cardiovascular disease.

Technology Review: What do you mean when you say "Aging is no longer an unsolved biological problem"?

Leonard Hayflick: What it means is precisely what it says. Several people in this field believe we do understand the biological cause of aging, which is the same as the cause of nonbiological aging. It's the second law of thermodynamics. Like all molecules, biological molecules dissipate energy, losing structural integrity and functional capacity. Our bodies have enormous repair capacity, which evolved to repair dysfunctional molecules until reproductive maturation, after which the accumulation of these molecules exceeds repair capacity. Otherwise, the species would vanish. The accumulation over time of dysfunctional molecules leads to the properties of aging at the clinical level that we all recognize.

TR: So it doesn't imply that there is a solution to aging?

LH: Why would you want to do that?

TR: Some people would like to slow or halt the aging process.

LH: They haven't thought about the consequences. We relate to each other by perceptions of differences in age, which would be destroyed if some chose to increase their longevity and some did not. The social, political, and economic discontinuities that would occur would be enormous. People who say they want extended longevity say they want it to be so when life satisfaction is greatest. Yet they won't know [when that is] until late in life. If you're in your eighties and you decide you want life extended when you were happier, at fifty, it's no longer possible.

Story continues below


TR: So you don't want to extend life span. But do you think it's theoretically possible?

LH: I think it's highly improbable. Let's take something infinitely simpler than your body and mine: automobiles. Even if you put the car in a garage and don't use it, it won't stand there forever. Eventually, it will age and disintegrate. This is an inevitable law of physics. Some people have proposed changing the parts as they wear out. But when is the original no longer the original? Replacing your brain becomes an insurmountable problem.

Comments

  • Backwardness of Logic
    TR: So it doesn't imply that there is a solution to aging?
    LH: Why would you want to do that?
    # what?!
    TR: Some people would like to slow or halt the aging process.
    LH: They haven't thought about the consequences. We relate to each other by perceptions of differences in age, which would be destroyed if some chose to increase their longevity and some did not.

    # Yes it would, that is what disruptive innovations do. And incidentally, why would you want to keep the status quo?


    People who say they want extended longevity say they want it to be so when life satisfaction is greatest.

    # That's one of the reasons but not the most important one as you picture it here. How about we take the lost of one's loved ones for a reason. Have you given thought to the horrible trauma that people go through as a consequence of losing someone and the enormousness of its impact on people's life?
    I think you have got this all backward.

    Yet they won't know [when that is] until late in life.

    # Backwards again… yes, it is true that nostalgia comes to you when you have lost something but if you never get to lose it then there is no reason to be nostalgic about it. If I never get to be old I would not have any perception of being old and losing my youthfulness and therefore I would not miss it. Why would I? It would not even cross my mind is it will be nonexistence.

    darwinsker...
    07/01/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: Backwardness of Logic
      Dr. Hayflick reminds me of Einstein commenting on God not playing dice to discredit quantum physics.

      A father of the field tries to "hold your horses."

      Also, I didn't like his car analogy.  The body is self-repairing.  Various human cells have been immortalized.  There are all sorts of reasons why that analogy is specious.

      Aside from all the many reasons we should try to extend life:

      1)  People can invest more in achieving and employing great capabilities and skills that may require decades to master, resulting in all the greater realization of human potential
      2)  There will need no longer be a tradeoff between wisdom and vigour
      3)  Old folks can be happy and productive, rather than bored and burdensome
      4)  If we do not respect life to the extent of focusing on its preservation, then what moral claims do we possess?
      5)  As with Everest, because it is there to be conquered.

      mikey248
      07/08/2009
      Posts:1
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • hmmm...
    There seems to be a great deal of 'faith' in Dr. Hayflick's views on the inevitabililty of ageing...an holistic 'correctness' to death simply because people have always been born, lived and died. He says those who would extend life 'haven't thought it through'. I completely disagree. Just because we can't predict what will happen if people suddenly start to live longer doesn't mean no one has thought about the ramifications. Just because we can't predict the future doesn't mean catastrophe is certain.

    avacoder
    07/01/2009
    Posts:1
    Avg Rating:
    4/5

This discussion has been moved to our discussions forum.

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

How to Make Robotic Hands
Sponsored by
More videos »
Technology Review September/October 2010

Current Issue

The TR35
Our annual selection of the world's top innovators under the age of 35.
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2010 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.