> Medicine men and magicians, alchemists, sages, and physicians have searched for ways to ward off the effects of aging. But to date, scientists and their predecessors alike have been rebuffed. ...
> Why has the problem of aging been such an intractable one? Up until recently, the prevalent view of scientists had been that the task of controlling aging was fundamentally impossible. But today, such a consensus no longer exists. Many researchers now believe that their predecessors failed, not because their goals were misguided, but because the tools and the level of sophistication they could bring to the task were inadequate. Moreover, it is argued that progress has been hampered because funding has been scarce, and researchers concerned with aging have been too few and far between.
> Indeed, until recently, aging research had been plagued by all of these problems. During most of the first half of the twentieth century, while rapid progress was being made in other areas of biomedicine, only a handful of scientists throughout the world were doing aging research. One of these pioneers was Nathan Shock, who, according to Paul D. Phillips, Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, is considered by many to be one of the “fathers” of modern gerontology.
> Growing public and private support for aging research reflects the scientific community’s own increasing commitment. Today, aging research occupies unprecedented numbers of highly talented individuals, not only specialists in gerontology, but researchers from other disciplines as well. These include biochemistry, endocrinology, immunology, neurobiology, genetics, and cell biology, to name only a few.
Garfield then lists a number of books advocating longevity research (Ettinger's 1962 "The Prospect of Immortality"; Barrington's 1969 "The Immortalist" ; Comfort's 1964 "The Process of Ageing"; Rosenfeld's 1983 "Prolongevity"), praises the increase in federal funding in longevity research, mentions private sector organizations funding aging research (The American Longevity Association; The American Federation for Aging Research) and lists similar organizations in different countries.
He then writes for a few pages more about the current status of longevity research in 1983, written for a technical but non-specialist audience.
With an additional 40 years of research, what progress has the field made? I don't know - I claim not even the basic of expertise in the area.
But what I can say is that certain arguments sound hollow after being repeated for decades with seemingly limited success.
It has long been known that restricting the diet of many kinds of animals made them live longer. The cause was more recently narrowed down to two sulfur-containing amino acids, methionine and cysteine, such that restricting only those extended the lifespan of test animals.
Experiments restricting primates' diet have failed to replicate the effect seen in other animals. Humans already live much longer than other mammals of similar size.
Here's an essay from Eugene Garfield from 1983 titled "The dilemma of prolongevity research -- Must we age before we die, or if we don't, will we?" at http://www.garfield.library.upenn.edu/essays/v6p107y1983.pdf
> Medicine men and magicians, alchemists, sages, and physicians have searched for ways to ward off the effects of aging. But to date, scientists and their predecessors alike have been rebuffed. ...
> Why has the problem of aging been such an intractable one? Up until recently, the prevalent view of scientists had been that the task of controlling aging was fundamentally impossible. But today, such a consensus no longer exists. Many researchers now believe that their predecessors failed, not because their goals were misguided, but because the tools and the level of sophistication they could bring to the task were inadequate. Moreover, it is argued that progress has been hampered because funding has been scarce, and researchers concerned with aging have been too few and far between.
> Indeed, until recently, aging research had been plagued by all of these problems. During most of the first half of the twentieth century, while rapid progress was being made in other areas of biomedicine, only a handful of scientists throughout the world were doing aging research. One of these pioneers was Nathan Shock, who, according to Paul D. Phillips, Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, is considered by many to be one of the “fathers” of modern gerontology.
> Growing public and private support for aging research reflects the scientific community’s own increasing commitment. Today, aging research occupies unprecedented numbers of highly talented individuals, not only specialists in gerontology, but researchers from other disciplines as well. These include biochemistry, endocrinology, immunology, neurobiology, genetics, and cell biology, to name only a few.
Garfield then lists a number of books advocating longevity research (Ettinger's 1962 "The Prospect of Immortality"; Barrington's 1969 "The Immortalist" ; Comfort's 1964 "The Process of Ageing"; Rosenfeld's 1983 "Prolongevity"), praises the increase in federal funding in longevity research, mentions private sector organizations funding aging research (The American Longevity Association; The American Federation for Aging Research) and lists similar organizations in different countries.
He then writes for a few pages more about the current status of longevity research in 1983, written for a technical but non-specialist audience.
With an additional 40 years of research, what progress has the field made? I don't know - I claim not even the basic of expertise in the area.
But what I can say is that certain arguments sound hollow after being repeated for decades with seemingly limited success.