The life-extension-skeptical theory I find most credible is "there is no conserved metabolic pathway governing lifespan that can be altered without serious harm to the organism. Aging is just overall damage/entropy; there is no "master switch" regulating its rate."
-
Show this thread
-
This pessimism/skepticism was the dominant view before Kenyon & Johnson's experiments found life-extending mutations in C. elegans.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
A version of the skeptical thesis is also Aubrey de Grey's position -- he thinks the lifespan-regulating mechanisms that "work" in worms won't transfer to higher organisms.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 likeShow this thread -
I, and most biogerontologists, are betting against the skeptical thesis, partly because there *is* evidence to suggest that lifespan is under genetic/hormonal control, and also for VOI reasons -- investigating in search of "master switches" could yield anti-aging drugs.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likesShow this thread -
Note that, if this approach works, it will completely fly in the face of everything drug development researchers are trained to do. Good pharma practice is to find "specific" drugs with single targets and well-understood effects.
1 reply 0 retweets 5 likesShow this thread
An anti-aging drug that modulates a global hormonal or metabolic pathway will do LOTS of things, not all of which we will understand ahead of time. This spooks experienced pharma researchers.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.