Partial reversal of aging achieved in mice

Nov 29, 2010 By Richard Saltus
Researchers led by Ronald A. DePinho (above), a Harvard Medical School professor of genetics, say their work shows for the first time a dramatic reversal of many aspects of age-related degeneration in mice, a milestone in aging science achieved by engineering mice with a controllable telomerase gene. The projection of chromosomes seen here shows telomeres (highlighted in red) on their ends. Photo by Kris Snibbe.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Harvard scientists at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute say they have for the first time partially reversed age-related degeneration in mice, resulting in new growth of the brain and testes, improved fertility, and the return of a lost cognitive function.

In a report posted online by the journal Nature in advance of print publication, researchers led by Ronald A. DePinho, a Harvard Medical School (HMS) professor of genetics, said they achieved the milestone in aging science by engineering mice with a controllable telomerase gene. The telomerase enzyme maintains the protective caps called telomeres that shield the ends of .

As humans , low levels of telomerase are associated with progressive erosion of telomeres, which may then contribute to tissue degeneration and in the elderly. By creating mice with a telomerase switch, the researchers were able to generate prematurely aged mice. The switch allowed the scientists to find out whether reactivating telomerase in the animals would restore telomeres and mitigate the signs and symptoms of aging. The work showed a dramatic reversal of many aspects of aging, including reversal of and .

While human applications remain in the future, the strategy might one day be used to treat conditions such as rare genetic premature aging syndromes in which shortened telomeres play an important role, said DePinho, senior author of the report and the director of Dana-Farber’s Belfer Institute for Applied Cancer Science. “Whether this would impact on normal aging is a more difficult question,” he added. “But it is notable that telomere loss is associated with age-associated disorders and thus restoration of telomeres could alleviate such decline.” The first author is Mariela Jaskelioff, a research fellow in medicine in DePinho’s laboratory.

Importantly, the animals showed no signs of developing cancer. This remains a concern because cancer cells turn on telomerase to make themselves virtually immortal. DePinho said the risk can be minimized by switching on telomerase only for a matter of days or weeks — which may be brief enough to avoid fueling hidden cancers or cause new ones to develop. Still, he observed, it is an important issue for further study.

In addition, DePinho said these results may provide new avenues for regenerative medicine, because they suggest that quiescent adult stem cells in severely aged tissues remain viable and can be reactivated to repair tissue damage.

“If you can remove the underlying damage and stresses that drive the aging process and cause stem cells to go into growth arrest, you may be able to recruit them back into a regenerative response to rejuvenate tissues and maintain health in the aged,” he said. Those stresses include the shortening of telomeres over time that causes cells and tissues to fail.

Loss of telomeres sends a cascade of signals that cause cells to stop dividing or self-destruct, stem cells to go into retirement, organs to atrophy, and brain cells to die. Generally, the shortening of telomeres in normal tissues shows a steady decline, except in the case of cancer, where they are maintained.

The experiments used mice that had been engineered to develop severe DNA and tissue damage as a result of abnormal, premature aging. These animals had short, dysfunctional telomeres and suffered a variety of age-related afflictions that progressed in successive generations of mice. Among the conditions were testes reduced in size and depleted of sperm, atrophied spleens, damage to the intestines, and shrinkage of the brain along with an inability to grow new brain cells.

“We wanted to know: If you could flip the telomerase switch on and restore telomeres in animals with entrenched age-related disease, what would happen?” explained DePinho. “Would it slow down aging, stabilize it, or even reverse it?”

Rather than supply the rodents with supplemental telomerase, the scientists devised a way to switch on the animals’ own dormant telomerase gene, known as TERT. They engineered the endogenous TERT gene to encode a fusion protein of TERT and the estrogen receptor. This fusion protein would only become activated with a special form of estrogen. With this setup, scientists could give the mice an estrogen-like drug at any time to stimulate the TERT-estrogen receptor fusion protein and make it active to maintain telomeres.

Against this backdrop, the researchers administered the estrogen drug to some of the mice via a time-release pellet inserted under the skin. Other animals, the controls, were given a pellet containing no active drug.

After four weeks, the scientists observed remarkable signs of rejuvenation in the treated mice. Overall, the mice exhibited increased levels of telomerase and lengthened telomeres, biological changes indicative of cells returning to a growth state with reversal of tissue degeneration, and increase in size of the spleen, testes, and brain. “It was akin to a Ponce de León effect,” noted DePinho, referring to the Spanish explorer who sought the mythical Fountain of Youth.

“When we flipped the telomerase switch on and looked a month later, the brains had largely returned to normal,” said DePinho. More newborn nerve cells were observed, and the fatty myelin sheaths around nerve cells — which had become thinned in the aged animals — increased in diameter. In addition, the increase in telomerase revitalized slumbering brain stem cells so they could produce new neurons.

To show that all this new activity actually caused functional improvements, the scientists tested the mice’s ability to avoid a certain area where they detected unpleasant odors that they associated with danger, such as scents of predators or rotten food. They had lost that survival skill as their olfactory nerve cells atrophied, but after the telomerase boost, those nerves regenerated and the mice regained their crucial sense of smell.

“One of the most amazing changes was in the animals’ testes, which were essentially barren as aging caused the death and elimination of sperm cells,” recounted DePinho. “When we restored telomerase, the testes produced new sperm , and the animals’ fecundity was improved — their mates gave birth to larger litters.”

The telomerase boost also lengthened the rodents’ life spans compared to their untreated counterparts — but they did not live longer than normal mice, said the researchers.

The authors concluded, “This unprecedented reversal of age-related decline in the central nervous system and other organs vital to adult mammalian health justifies exploration of telomere rejuvenation strategies for age-associated diseases.”

Explore further: Secret of tetanus toxicity offers new way to treat motor neuron disease

Related Stories

Short chromosomes put cancer cells in forced rest

Apr 25, 2007

A Johns Hopkins team has stopped in its tracks a form of blood cancer in mice by engineering and inactivating an enzyme, telomerase, thereby shortening the ends of chromosomes, called telomeres.

New target for cancer therapy identified

Sep 21, 2006

A new target for cancer therapy has been identified by Monash University scientists investigating the cell signalling pathways that turn on a gene involved in cancer development.

Recommended for you

Stroke damage mechanism identified

23 hours ago

Researchers have discovered a mechanism linked to the brain damage often suffered by stroke victims—and are now searching for drugs to block it.

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (27) Nov 29, 2010
This is bad. The order in which we're advancing in the relative fields is alarming.

Hopefully we solve energy, environment, and food production before we abate, remove, or reverse aging.
El_Nose
4.8 / 5 (22) Nov 29, 2010
One could argue the opposite as well... what if we could have kept Eistien Bohr and Plank around 50 more years - where would we be now -- if we in 15 years have the ability to add 40 more years to the lives of Hawking , Andre Geim, Konstantin Novoselov,and Carl Wieman where will physics be, if we give 30 more years to Jack W. Szostak, Carol W. Greider, and Elizabeth H. Blackburn where will medicine be.... ????

The drawbacks are enourmous -- humans that live to be 180 on an planet we don;t live in harmony with already. THe issue is pollution... not food, not even water -- we only use 20% of habitable land -- the issue is we abuse the heck out of that 20% and if we used 60% we might destroy the world way too quickly at our current rate.
danlgarmstrong
3.7 / 5 (9) Nov 29, 2010
Imagine the productivity boost you get by having a HEALTY working population of mature adults. Who will hopefully have the wisdom to move toward a sustainable future. There is so much loss and waste in our systems that, with better management and technology, I am sure we could have twice our world population and still have a better world.
Eric_B
2.5 / 5 (19) Nov 29, 2010
"This is bad. The order in which we're advancing in the relative fields is alarming.

Hopefully we solve energy, environment, and food production before we abate, remove, or reverse aging."

Then kill yourself to make more resources available to others.
LariAnn
3.4 / 5 (15) Nov 29, 2010
Pardon my cynicism, but the benefits of this technology will be offered to the richest and most influential people, not to the brightest or the ones with the benefit of humanity foremost in their minds. Thus, we will have tyrants as well as supermodels that live 180 years, but the working people will still be dying miserably at 60 or 70 if they are lucky.
LivaN
4.2 / 5 (13) Nov 29, 2010
This is bad. The order in which we're advancing in the relative fields is alarming.


Do you realise how much time money and effort is invested in each new generation? To go from an infant to a productive member of society costs society an arm and a leg.

To top it off, this investment is a depreciating one thanks to age related effects. Much more econimical to stop aging. Then nearly 99% of the population will be the working class, rather than a majority being depenant on it.

Also you may be supprised to find that when people aren't gaurenteed to die, they tend to care more about their environment.
otto1932
1.6 / 5 (29) Nov 29, 2010
Imagine the productivity boost you get by having a HEALTY working population of mature adults. Who will hopefully have the wisdom to move toward a sustainable future.
We've got that now, many of whom can't find work. More efficient workers just means fewer jobs for everybody.

"No man is an island,
Entire of itself.
Each is a piece of the continent,
A part of the main.
If a clod be washed away by the sea,
Europe is the less.
As well as if a promontory were.
As well as if a manner of thine own
Or of thine friend's were.
Each man's death diminishes me,
For I am involved in mankind.
Therefore, send not to know
For whom the bell tolls,
It tolls for thee."

-We're toast.
LivaN
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2010
Pardon my cynicism, but the benefits of this technology will be offered to the richest and most influential people, not to the brightest or the ones with the benefit of humanity foremost in their minds. Thus, we will have tyrants as well as supermodels that live 180 years, but the working people will still be dying miserably at 60 or 70 if they are lucky.

Not so, china for one will certainly offer this to their work force, the majorit of which are above retirement age.

Think about it, the first country who implements it will have a HUGE econimical advantage.
otto1932
1.7 / 5 (27) Nov 29, 2010
Not so, china for one will certainly offer this to their work force, the majorit of which are above retirement age.
They are retired early and then sit around playing chess because there's not enough work per capita. The more work you do, the more resources you expend, the more energy you consume, and the more waste you create; all of which we need to do LESS of, which could be a primary Reason for the global recession we are in right now.

A pulling back, a turning down, a great and permanent reduction in Thruput, as it is no longer necessary to generate innovation and spread civilization. And it's danger to the planet has become critical.
LariAnn
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
Well, considering how much more the workers with seniority will wish to be compensated, it is in the best interest of companies to have high turnover, not long-lived workers. Imagine the incredible cost of retirement for someone who has been on the job for 80 to 100 years, as opposed to workers who did not last 20 years, not to mention the exorbitant pay rates such long-lived workers would demand. The alternative is a tyrannical employment system with few benefits and small raises, even for people who've been loyal workers for 100 years! I return to my original postulate: the ones in charge will live 180 years; the workers will be expendable and kept at low pay and benefits for maximum economic benefit to the company and the powers that be.
danlgarmstrong
3 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2010
Along with social changes that will come with people staying healthy to extreme ages, this world needs to figure out how to deal with much of the manual work being done by machines. Long ago it was postulated that society will get to the point that like 2% of the people actually working will keep things going. Maybe we will need to come up with something else than 'paid work' forming the base of our economy.
LariAnn
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
A starker future might be that while aging is reversed with genetic engineering, so is fertility, such that in order to procreate, a person has to have genetic work done to "turn on" their ability to produce gametes, as well as obtain a federal license to procreate. In this imagined future, most people won't do "work" in the conventional sense, as more than 90% of the work will be done by robots. Those individuals in a much more sparsely populated Earth will do the creative and exploratory efforts, such that most, if not all, human "workers" will be either scientists or artists. The practical application of scientific discoveries will be done by computers/robots with artificial intelligence. Such "workers" won't require benefits, wages, healthcare or retirement plans, just regular mechanical and software maintenance and upgrades.
danlgarmstrong
3.3 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
The advent of 'civilization' allowed for the creation of an 'elite' social class supported by a much larger working class. This was because the workers created the 'wealth' that supported the elite. Why should not the much greater wealth that society gains through advanced technology sustain us all? The future need not be 'stark' at all, not if our social structures change. The biggest problem could be reining in 'excess'. Maybe this is why we would finally move out into space - where people could let their imaginations run wild creating things there - whereas here on Earth they would need to be constrained.

Please excuse my optimism - don't know whats come over me!
El_Nose
3 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2010
Just a side thought -- my mind looking at the issue from a slightly different angle....

If we give humans the ablility to live lets say 40 - 50 more years ... Then the demise of money has to happen. You will have millionaires that will be presented with the oppertunity to become a billionaire/trillionaire in their own lifetime.

Companies would become much more powerful, able to keep the leadership in place for 2 generations or more

And if we are able to sufficiently slow down aging then whats to say that the mind can stay nimble that long even if the body is willing.
KwasniczJ
1.6 / 5 (26) Nov 29, 2010
These mouses were aged artificially in accelerated way - so it's possible, during slow ageing the auto-repairing mechanisms of telomerase will not be so effective.
El_Nose
not rated yet Nov 29, 2010
@lariAnn

retirement is now defined contribution -- we have done away with defined benefit plans.

The difference if you ar eunaware is that DC means you puts a set amount away for retirement -- we used to have DB which meant that you hit a certain number of years with a company and you were guranteed a % of your salary with health benefits

needless to say DB plans are unsustainable - and we are waiting for the people on them to die off -- while DC plans are not dependant on anything but someone working for themselves and putting money away.
El_Nose
1 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
Other thoughts -- sci-fi / hypothetical

@lariann

I always figured that the characters on Star Trek had a big issue -- they should have been really long lived.

if space travel was viable then why not have anyone that wished to extend there lifespan sent into space - to do whatever - especially men. Why men - well they can contribute to procreation as long as they live... women have a definite timespan with which to procreate.

Having men that are 4 generations behind adding the genetic code - doesn't sit well with me. WOuldn;t this stagnate evolution in our species - making us less able to adapt to a changing environment?

So keep a pure stock of humans on Earth ... and if you don;t want to die you have to help out humanity in space.
danlgarmstrong
5 / 5 (7) Nov 29, 2010
@Nose

Evolution has changed. Tinkering with telomerase is just one aspect of the control we have over our own genetics. WE decide where evolution is going now - not random events or enviromental change. Of course there is still much to learn, but thats where we are going. It will be an accelerating process as well. I expect an explosion of new species all steming from humanity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (38) Nov 29, 2010
Having men that are 4 generations behind adding the genetic code - doesn't sit well with me. WOuldn;t this stagnate evolution in our species - making us less able to adapt to a changing environment?
2 articles which address the end of human evolution:
http://www.timeso...4696.ece
http://www.medica...4484.php

-Youre also assuming that human evolution over the last 50k yrs or so was somehow 'natural', and not some form of domestication?

-That being the process of adapting to the unnatural foods and environments we were creating; as well as living in the context of millions of years of chronic tribal warfare?
http://www.theatl...l/58643/
http://www.hhmi.o...hn3.html
http://en.wikiped..._warfare

And finally, the possibility of directed Efforts of culling the most contentious and headstrong?
agref
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
This is bad. The order in which we're advancing in the relative fields is alarming.

Hopefully we solve energy, environment, and food production before we abate, remove, or reverse aging.


The only thing that needs to be solved is the population growth rate, which is a problem whether we figure out immortality or not.

Develop contraceptives for men, improve women's contraceptives, and give them all away for free.
nada
1 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2010
It won't undo DNA mutations so all it means is that everyone will die of cancer.
agref
2.3 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
The future need not be 'stark' at all, not if our social structures change.


And how exactly do you propose that we make that happen?

I am confident that we will conquer death. We will develop the ability to customize babies for health, intelligence, and strength. But only the ultra-rich will be able to afford it. A caste of rich immortals, driven purely by greed and Libertarian/Randian politics, with their own unquestioningly loyal personal robot armies, vs a caste of poor mortals, exploited as slaves until they die off from diseases the rich are immune to. Sounds like a great future.
david_42
5 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
" ... but they did not live longer than normal mice, said the researchers."

You people missed this. More productive, but not longer lives would be a boon to society. Think about how much of health care is expended on maintaining people with degenerative diseases.
danlgarmstrong
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 29, 2010
"But only the ultra-rich will be able to afford it."

Why must this tech automatically be assumed expensive? It seems to me that genetic therapies should actually be quite cheap. Your cells would do most of the work after all.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
Why must this tech automatically be assumed expensive? It seems to me that genetic therapies should actually be quite cheap. Your cells would do most of the work after all.
How much do all medical treatments cost at first implementation?
Grallen
5 / 5 (1) Nov 29, 2010
Also you may be supprised to find that when people aren't gaurenteed to die, they tend to care more about their environment.


This is an excellent point. Many people justify things they do, based upon the fact they are going to die. .....Or the fact they think the world is going to end anyways.
otto1932
2.1 / 5 (14) Nov 29, 2010
Why must this tech automatically be assumed expensive? It seems to me that genetic therapies should actually be quite cheap. Your cells would do most of the work after all.
How much do all medical treatments cost at first implementation?
You are paying for the R&D and everything else-
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Nov 29, 2010
This is bad. The order in which we're advancing in the relative fields is alarming.

Hopefully we solve energy, environment, and food production before we abate, remove, or reverse aging.


Necessity is the mother of invention. We won't fix energy and food and etc. until we absolutely have to. It seems to be a trait of our species. We are a species of procrastinators. This is good. Like they said, the human trials are far off. Perhaps the prospect of extending life spans will prompt others in our society to plan for tomorrow. When people may live for 200 years, they may take actions now to ensure their happiness in the far off future.
trekgeek1
3.8 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
Pardon my cynicism, but the benefits of this technology will be offered to the richest and most influential people, not to the brightest or the ones with the benefit of humanity foremost in their minds. Thus, we will have tyrants as well as supermodels that live 180 years, but the working people will still be dying miserably at 60 or 70 if they are lucky.


Kurtzweill addressed this point. He stated that the price for increasing your life just a couple of years will be extraordinary at first. But then it will get cheaper as it gets more effective. The average person won't be too bummed at losing out on 2 years for a small fortune. As it becomes desirable, it will become affordable.
geokstr
3 / 5 (8) Nov 29, 2010
...new growth of the brain and testes...

Now there's a great development, finally. After 5 decades of the wussification and pussification of the Western male by militant feminism, the ability to grow some bigger cojones is way past due.
DamienS
4 / 5 (4) Nov 29, 2010
Why does everyone think this is a life extension mechanism? The article states:
The telomerase boost also lengthened the rodents’ life spans compared to their untreated counterparts — but they did not live longer than normal mice

So at best this might allow you to remain healthy into old age, but it will not make you live to be 180. For that, they might need to combine the effects of calorie restriction (by working out the mechanism of action, rather than starving oneself).
ZipWizard
4 / 5 (2) Nov 29, 2010
Quote from article: "...The telomerase boost also lengthened the rodents’ life spans compared to their untreated counterparts — but they did not live longer than normal mice, said the researchers."

Huh. What is to STOP the researchers from re introducing the wonder drug(s) to renew them? Perhaps by renewing treatments every so often, they become immortal. The going theory is, as long as the telomerase based enzymes do not run out, there is no death of that cell. Just LOOK at cancer cells for your proof! After human trails, this could be the 1st leg of life extension to 100 and beyond.
Bamberg
4.8 / 5 (5) Nov 30, 2010
Awesome. Now we just have to figure out how to turn humans into mice.
KaiBrunnenG
4 / 5 (1) Nov 30, 2010
@zipwizard

I agree, that didn't make any sense-if they were able to reverse aging in the genetically aged mice, they should be able to keep stimulating them with their telomerase drug and extend their lifespan indefinitely. I was a bit disappointed when they said they only lived as long as normal mice.

Even if that's all they can achieve-at the very least we'll be quite healthy right up until we die at the normal age. However I believe this advance should extend our lifespan significantly.

I just wish they would quickly move on to humans. I'm sure there would be plenty of geriatrics who'd be willing guinea pigs for this treatment-they know they'll be dead soon anyways, they have nothing to lose and perhaps a chance to be young again.

But I liked this article because this is the first real glimpse we've had into the possibility of 'curing' aging. Even if I couldn't live forever or 1000 years, an extra 50 would be really nice. I think in another 20 years they might be able to do it.
insectking
4 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
This is one of most exciting developments I've heard about in a long time. I see it altering our lifestyles -- shorter careers bridged with retirements that allow a person to study for his new career.

Fantastic.

Of course, there will also be terrible consequences too, but it seems like a nice development over, say, weapons research.
Raveon
4 / 5 (2) Nov 30, 2010
This is bad. The order in which we're advancing in the relative fields is alarming...


I disagree. We already refuse to face our overpopulation problem and slowing it down is only making it worse, we would be much better off if it threatened to explode overnight.

This experiment does nothing for the longevity of the living, it would require germline modifications which would only help newborns. Don't expect everyone to rush out and make their kids immortal.

I view immortality as being our savior. It would create an immense leisure class that would consume but not produce, a boon for workers creating their own wealth to eventually join the leisure class.

Physical immortality is no guarantee of immortality. Statistically, we would all eventually have a fatal accident. Immortality would lead to boredom for many and they would take more chances. Suicide rates would go up as people got older.

I personally can't wait for an immortality serum, expected it before now.
LivaN
5 / 5 (1) Dec 01, 2010

It would create an immense leisure class that would consume but not produce, a boon for workers creating their own wealth to eventually join the leisure class.


I imagine it would change the entire world. Change our way of life forever. There won't be separate classes, all will live forever. Machines will do the work, we will learn, explore, and create to our hearts content.

Physical immortality is no guarantee of immortality.


It could be. Imagine having a body made of nanites that simply reassemble. You could have backups of your conscious made at regular intervals. Any untimely demise simply restores the last version of you.


Immortality would lead to boredom


I disagree. You are thinking to short term, and limiting yourself to this solar system. If we live forever intergalactic travel is the next frontier.
We may have missed the Big Bang...but I for one would like to see the closing act.
Raveon
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
I didn't say I would be bored, many others would be, they are bored now with our too short lifespan. Machines will never do all the work, that is a dead end path if it happens.
jon247365
not rated yet Dec 01, 2010
Bring it on advancement is what we crave!!
jon247365
5 / 5 (2) Dec 01, 2010
If ur bored u must be rather boring in the 1st place in my opinion
Raveon
4 / 5 (4) Dec 02, 2010
If ur bored u must be rather boring in the 1st place in my opinion


Almost as boring as not spelling out words like 'you' and 'you're'
fullbony
1 / 5 (1) Dec 05, 2010
not aging doesnt make you invincible. you can still die by the sword.

life will become ever more precious. killing will become the method of population control and suicide will be the answer for many.

new ideas will be less frequent and established power structures for long term control will profit.

evolution of the body will lessen and certain minds will achieve extraordinary wisdom and experience.

enginarc
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
if I live for 180 years, will I be forced to work for 150 years? that IS depressing
Raveon
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
There's no reason you should have to work any longer than before to accumulate enough wealth to retire. Probably less since the retired leisure class will grow and create more demand for the goods and services the working class provides.

There may have to be laws to help force people to work for their retirement but it would be worth it in the long run. I would feel a lot better about working 50 years if I knew I would enjoy a 100 year retirement.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Dec 06, 2010
So at best this might allow you to remain healthy into old age, but it will not make you live to be 180. For that, they might need to combine the effects of calorie restriction (by working out the mechanism of action, rather than starving oneself).
A great many life extending medical treatments don't work well for the elderly and are dangerous due to their states of health.

If you are as robust at 60 as you are at 30, heart surgery, hip replacements, other surgical procedures, and a great many medications are on the table that would otherwise kill you.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Dec 06, 2010
" ... but they did not live longer than normal mice, said the researchers."

You people missed this
And several others said similar things.

YOU guys missed something else.

They only turned on the telemorase for four weeks. Then it went back to OFF. They did not try to test whether the mice could live longer than normal mice. Pretty much all they did was take mice with pre-mature aging and turn off the pre-mature part. Even though they could have could have taken it farther they did not.

Not yet anyway.

I suspect the people claiming this is bad are young. To me its damn well time someone tested this. If I had been in that field I would have wanted to test it many years ago. I suppose the techniques needed are only now becoming available.

If nothing else this sort of thing could fix the problems with Social Security and vastly decrease the the total cost of the medical system. Most of the money on medicine goes to people at the end of life.

Ethelred
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
If you are as robust at 60 as you are at 30, heart surgery, hip replacements,
Phil Jackson, the coach of Los Angeles Lakers had hip replacement a year ago when he was already over 60.

Ethelred
Raveon
5 / 5 (1) Dec 06, 2010
I think, one way or another, life extension or immortality is possible. if it's possible it's inevitable. When it happens the religious morons and sociology idiots will be at the front trying to stop it, telling us it goes against god and it will lead to all kinds of problems. There is going to be a big fight when this happens and all I can say is no one is going to tell me I have to die and withhold this treatment.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.