My attention was directed to a paper I had missed:

Each animal species displays a specific life span, rate of aging and pattern of development of age-dependent diseases. The genetic bases of these related features are being studied experimentally in invertebrate and vertebrate model systems as well as in humans through medical records. Three types of mutants are being analyzed: (i) short-lived mutants that are prone to age-dependent diseases and might be models of accelerated aging; (ii) mutants that show overt molecular defects but that do not live shorter lives than controls, and can be used to test specific theories about the molecular causes of aging and age-dependent diseases; and (iii) long-lived mutants that might advance the understanding of the molecular physiology of slow-aging animals and aid the discovery of molecular targets that could be used to manipulate rates of aging to benefit human health. Here, I analyze some of what we know today and discuss what we should try to find out in the future to understand the aging phenomenon.

Here is a blog post with comments, as well as a few excerpts for those of you with neither a subscription to Nature Genetics nor $30 to hand:

Recall that in an earlier post I noted that I have been giving some thought to the proposal that we ought to wage a war on aging itself. As I read through Hekimi's paper these issues came to me again. As a prioritarian I am of mixed minds about the prospect of such a war being waged, given the facts of scarcity and pervasive disadvantage. Much of course depends on what the proposed means of fighting such a war are, how proportionate our attention to this cause is relative to other pressing moral demands, as well as the likely magnitude of the benefits of waging such a war. I think such concerns inform, for example, the Longevity Dividend Campaign, hence the reason I support it.

The more I think about the phenomenon of aging the more I realise that we need to critically assess our current attitudes towards aging and the effort to extend the human health span.

I am always pleased to note the spread of people - of any socioeconomic tendency - talking seriously about healthy life extension in terms of research and the future. If we advocates could accomplish just one goal in the next decade, moving the broad discussion of aging from inevitability, skincare and diet - the focus on the useless and the nonsense of the now - to something more like the public discussion of cancer research and funding ... well, that would be a very big deal in and of itself.

There is any amount of abstract support out there in the world for living longer, more youthful lives. But unless we can harness that support to concrete goals and knowledge - that science can produce real results in healthy life extension; that we must support and fund research to achieve those results - then it's no better than no support at all.

But I think we can both change the conversation and make progress in other areas, such as funding research aimed directly at extending the healthy human lifespan. This is the way the world changes - through people setting out to make a difference, one by one.

Technorati tags: activism, advocacy, aging, life extension

Posted by Reason at October 14, 2006 6:47 PM | TrackBack (0)