Which problems should we focus research in medicine and also the biological sciences? There is a solid argument for tackling the diseases that kill the most people, diseases like malaria, measles, and also diarrhea, which kill millions throughout developing countries, but very few inside the developed world.
Developed countries, nonetheless, devote most of their research funds on the diseases from which their individuals suffer, and that seems planning to continue for the foreseeable long term. Given that constraint, which medical breakthrough would do the most to improve our lives?
If your first thought is relief from cancer or a cure for heart disease, think again. Aubrey de Gray, chief science officer of SENS Foundation and also the world's most prominent advocate regarding anti-aging research, argues that it makes no sense to spend almost all our medical resources on trying to combat the diseases of growing older without tackling aging itself.
If we cure one of these diseases, those who would have died from that can expect to succumb to another in many years. The benefit is therefore small.
In developed countries, aging could be the ultimate cause of 90 percent of most human deaths; thus, treating aging is a form of preventive medicine for all with the diseases of old age.
Moreover, even before aging leads to the death, it reduces our capacity have fun with our own lives and to contribute positively on the lives of others.
So, instead of targeting specific diseases that are greatly subjected to occur when people have reached a certain age, wouldn't a better strategy be to try and forestall or repair the destruction done to our bodies by getting older?
De Grey believes that even modest progress in this region over the coming decade can lead to a dramatic extension of the human lifespan.
All we should do is reach what he cell phone calls "longevity escape velocity, " that may be, the point at which we can easily extend life sufficiently to make it possible for time for further scientific progress permitting additional extensions, and thus additional progress and greater longevity. Communicating recently at Princeton University, de Gray said: "We don't know how old the first person who will live to be able to 150 is today, but the first person to live to 1, 000 is practically certainly less than 20 decades younger. "
What most attracts de Grey with this prospect is not living forever, but rather the extension regarding healthy, youthful life that would feature a degree of control over the procedure of aging.
In developed nations around the world, enabling those who are young or middle-aged to stay youthful longer would attenuate the looming demographic problem of your historically unprecedented proportion of the people reaching advanced age - and frequently becoming dependent on younger folks.
On the other hand, we still need to pose the ethical question: Are we being selfish in seeking to extend our lives so substantially? And, if we succeed, will the end result be good for some however unfair to others?
People in rich countries already can expect to live about 30 years longer than people inside the poorest countries.
If we discover how to slow aging, we might have a world that poor majority must face death during a period when members of the rich minority are simply one-tenth of the way via their expected life spans.
That disparity is one reason to believe that overcoming aging will boost the stock of injustice on this planet. Another is that if people continue to be born, while others do definitely not die, the planet's population increases at an even faster rate than it can be now, which will likewise make life for most much worse than it might have been otherwise.
Prices likely to be able to drop
Whether we can overcome these objections will depend on our degree of optimism with regards to future technological and economic advances. De Grey's response to the first objection is that, while anti-aging treatment can be expensive initially, the price probably will drop, as it has for a great number of other innovations, from computers on the drugs that prevent the progress of AIDS.
If the world can keep develop economically and technologically, people can be wealthier, and, in the years to come, anti-aging treatment will benefit everyone. So why not get started and help it become a priority now?
As with the second objection, contrary to what most people assume, success in overcoming aging may itself give us breathing space to get solutions to the population trouble, because it would also wait or eliminate menopause, enabling women to obtain their first children much later than they might now. If economic development continues, fertility rates in developing nations around the world will fall, as they include in developed countries. In the end, technology, too, may help to overcome the people objection, by providing new reasons for energy that do not raise our carbon footprint.
The populace objection raises a deeper philosophical query.
If our planet has a finite capacity to compliment human life, is it advisable have fewer people living lengthier lives, or more people residing shorter lives? One reason for thinking it advisable have fewer people living lengthier lives is that only those who are born know what death deprives all of them of; those who do not exist cannot really know what they are missing.
De Grey has established SENS Foundation to promote analysis into anti-aging. By most criteria, his fund raising efforts have been successful, for the foundation now posseses an annual budget of around US$4 trillion. But that is still pitifully small by the standards of medical research fundamentals.
De Grey might be wrong, but if there is a small chance that he is usually right, the huge pay-offs make anti-aging research a better bet than areas of medical research which can be currently far better funded.
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น