The Lack of Consensus on Approaches to Aging as a Flaw to be Fixed

It can be argued that the largest challenge facing the development of means to treat aging as a medical condition is that there is, as of yet, no useful consensus position on how to measure aging, how to define aging, or which of the countless measurable aspects of biochemistry that change with age are the most appropriate targets for therapy. This means that any given research group or biotech startup has a lot of leeway to argue that their approach is the right one - and it might take twenty years to establish the effects of their therapies on long-term health and life span, even given a successful development program. There is a shotgun approach underway, in which the research and development communities try many different things and see how it goes, only limited by their ability to persuade sources of funding to support the work. I imagine that this will continue for the foreseeable future, given just how long it takes to assess the efficacy of a given approach to therapy.

From a funding perspective, should the first generation of therapies to slow and reverse aspects of aging start to produce very promising data on long-term health by the end of the 2030s, there will be thereafter be funding for just about every option on the table to treat aging. The hype cycles will come and go, and it may well be the case that enough funding to try all of the available options will in fact be needed. It seems to me that the most straightforward way to reverse engineer the biology of aging, to decide on which of the many identified mechanisms are the most important, the closest to being root causes, is to produce prototype and first generation therapies for all of the plausible approaches to rejuvenation, the various means of repair of cell and tissue damage, and compare the resulting benefits in human trials. It won't be a fast process, but likely faster than the other options on the table.

We need to shift the focus of aging research to aging itself

The field of aging is at a precipice. Attention and funding are increasingly focused on this area, and exciting, fundamentally important findings are being reported literally every day. As the great promise of targeting aging comes into sharper focus, we are rapidly approaching the point where we must face the elephant in the room: We lack any semblance of a consensus on the nature of aging or, more fundamentally, on the essence of this process. Taking steps to resolve these foundational issues in aging biology will enable us to advance this field to the next level.

As a field, we claim to study aging - but what, in essence, do we study? What is that most basic, fundamental feature of the process that we call aging? Is it functional decline, damage accumulation, increased mortality rate, continuation of development, increased biological age, decrease in the strength of natural selection, the totality of age-related changes, loss of homeostasis, loss of information, their combination, or something else? After organisms reach adulthood, all of these features seemingly go hand in hand, but their coordination is not perfect, and there must be one underlying, explanatory feature that leads to the others. What is it, and can we truly advance the field without identifying it?

Aging biology is exponentially growing as a field, and talented scientists are designing and carrying out many elegant studies. However, in many ways, we are attempting to construct a building without a foundation. One can see this by the lack of clear answers to some of the most basic questions: When does aging begin? To what extent, if any, is biological age dynamic and potentially reversible? Which biomarkers are most appropriate to measure biological age, and do any of them actually measure aging directly?

To begin answering these questions and ensuring the future success of this field, we propose two critical concepts on which aging biologists can actively focus their collective attention: the essence of aging and the nature of aging. To be clear, we are not suggesting that either a formal definition or a unified theory of aging is an immediate need for the field. The essence and nature of aging represent more fundamental concepts, from which we envision that a consensus definition and theory of aging may proceed in the future. In the immediate term, these concepts may serve as building blocks to form the basis of our understanding of aging biology.

We define the "essence of aging" as the most basic, essential, explanatory, and causative feature of biological aging. It is the underlying driving force of the manifestations of advanced age, such as frailty, loss of function, and age-related diseases. Identifying the essence of aging is critical if we wish to study and target aging itself, rather than its later-stage manifestations. Many aging biologists invoke the hallmarks or pillars of aging as a basic starting point for conceptually framing aging biology. However, the essence of aging, in our minds, represents a more fundamental concept underlying these and other characteristics of aging. In the same way that the Hallmarks of Cancer can be reduced to a single essence - mutations - we should be able to, and should strive to, distill a single essence of aging that drives all of the hallmarks/pillars and higher-level manifestations of aging.

We define the "nature of aging" as the inherent properties and dynamics that characterize aging as a biological phenomenon. The nature of aging is conceptually related to critical outstanding questions in the field, such as the behavior of biological age over the life course; the point at which aging begins; and the extent to which aging of a subset of cells or tissues impacts the aging of surrounding or distant cells/tissues. The nature of aging is a much broader concept than the essence of aging, but understanding the nature of aging is no less critical to our ability to target this process.


The answers to these questions are very clear: Ageing is inherent in growth and development and so, starts at conception. We start off life with a telomere at the end of each chromosome, whose length is paternally determined and which is decreased in length at each cell division. When cells reach their 'telomere limit' and can no longer divide, they either undergo apoptosis (self-destruct) or become senescent and inflammatory. Unfortunately, ageing (as a 'disease') results from each of these alternatives. My book 'Why We Age - Solving the Puzzle of Aging' (available on Amazon) explains the science and many of the positive steps we can take to reduce the negative effects.

Posted by: Dr Judy Ford at September 19th, 2023 11:02 PM

Bit of semantics waffle there, really, over complicating what is quite simple. The machine is created and in time it starts wearing out and breaking down. That's it.

Posted by: Neal Asher at September 19th, 2023 11:28 PM

@Dr Judy Ford

Please inform David Sinclair.

It appears that he is unaware of what you are saying, he continues to produce nonsensical statements such as:

Loss of epigenetic information as a cause of mammalian aging
Cell (2023) doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.12.027 issn: 0092-8674 pubmed: 36638792

Perhaps you could give him your book, and in return, he might give you his: 'Lifespan: Why We Age-and Why We Don't Have To'

Please keep up the good work!

Posted by: Jones at September 20th, 2023 2:30 AM

If we are talking about fundamental methodologies and overriding conceptual approaches, I propose:
Approach: Building Resilience and Robustness -vs- Improving Repair and Restoration.
I, for one, feel that the human body is fundamentally fragile, damage-attracting, and compounds/ spreads 'brokenness' on top of brokenness with time - an accelerating self-destructing machine of limited repair potential - therefore, switching out weak, deteriorated, and non-functional parts is the best way to preserve a fundamental humanity of the One. Improving the strength and potential of the One at the earliest stages would go on to assist in that.
That being said, the money and research, as appears to be alleged, is in repair - in the hopes that there does exist a potential that the human's natural repairs and medicine's non-altering interventions Will Be Enough to overcome at some near term.

Posted by: Jer at September 20th, 2023 7:17 AM

@Jones @Judy Ford

Sadly telomere attrition is probably just one of multiple aging mechanisms present in eukaryotes. However, it is certainly one of the 'low hanging fruit' that can be fixed fairly easily it seems.

Posted by: Danny at September 21st, 2023 5:05 PM

... 'low hanging fruit' that can be fixed fairly easily it seems.' (No side effects?)
Are you sure it does need fixing?
What do you believe the effect size of a single 'low hanging fruit' intervention like telomerase therapy is on life/health span in humans? (Esp. wrt much more interesting things going on upstream of telomere attrition.)

Posted by: Jones at September 22nd, 2023 12:24 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.