
Scientists engineer mice genomes to lengthen their lifespans by 30 percent - mrfusion
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/12/15/science/scientists-say-they-can-reset-clock-of-aging-for-mice-at-least.html?referer=https://pay.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5ijdkz/in_the_first_attempt_to_reverse_aging_by/
======
daemonk
tldr for biologists out there. They made a transgenic mouse line of
doxycycline inducible Yamanaka factors in progeria (LAKI) background. Too high
induction lead to mortality and teratomas, which is known. They cyclicly
induced the Yamanaka factors and found it reversed signs of aging (prolong
lifespan by ~30%)

~~~
anigbrowl
Thanks so much. I don't know why news headline writers are so insistent on
bullshit, when they could have taken a cue from you and said 'gene therapy
increases mouse lifespans by 30%,' which would have been just as short and
interesting but vastly more honest.

~~~
lvs
Not quite. The actual article title is far more correct than either the
clickbait headline or your headline:

"In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks _of Progeria_ by Partial
Reprogramming" ( _my addition_ )

~~~
bjelkeman-again
But that is really hard to understand for a non-specialist. Means nothing at
all for me.

~~~
lvs
Well, I'm quite sorry to hear that, but the paper was written for specialists,
and its results are primarily interpretable by and relevant to specialists.
Why exactly it made it into a press release and news articles is completely
inexplicable when analyzed within the bounds of the work.

~~~
ptero
A popular science, or even general news type reviews of current research are
very valuable. However, in the unavoidable simplifications, they do need to
keep the main findings correct, not expand into outlandish claims for
clickbait

------
jgord
Its very noisy to read these 'blip' articles, rather like following the stock
ticker blow by blow ...

Its wonderful that we see these interesting reports every week, but as a non-
specialist you never how it will impact human longevity, and when.

What I'd like to read is a well considered "state-of-longevity-science" report
- by someone not Aubrey DeGray (give the man a medal) but equally cognizant,
perhaps more conservative - that actually explains and weighs the torrent of
advancements as they happen and gives them some context.

What is the likely impact of crispr, of rosveratrol, of telomere-foo, of gene-
therapy, of blood cleansing, of stem-cells on logevity in 10 / 20 years ?
Where and why should we rationally allocate research money ? What is likely to
benefit Alzheimers patients in the 5 year term ?

Its the kind of state of play you need updated on a monthly basis, due to the
pace of progress.

Does such a report already exist ?

~~~
spaceheeder
To my knowledge no such report exists. The only answers you'll find will come
from reading dozens of articles like this one over a long span of time, mixed
with reading "primary sources" (put in quotes because as often as not those
sources may be trying to sell you something).

While I am not qualified to put together a comprehensive report, I've been
following this subject with some interest for a while, first as a skeptic, and
now as someone who believes that not all of these people are completely full
of hot air.

Even with my change of heart, I'd still bet against anything in your list
other than crispr having any quantifiable impact on longevity in the next
decade, and even then the first applications will be specific to particular
age-related diseases.

Something resembling a more full "maintenance approach" to preventing aging
and age-related disease may be within reach within 20 years, but I'd bet
against that, too. Sticking my finger in the air and guessing, I'd say that
such a complete overhaul of medicine is at least 50 years away. Although I
should stipulate my guess is only that pessimistic because I'm biased towards
thinking that such advances won't be made in my own lifetime because, hey, it
rarely hurts to be a pessimist.

~~~
AstralStorm
The main problem now is delivery of such gene therapies. Crispr is pretty
limited.

And human in vitro modification is taboo also wrapped in politics.

------
HaveCourage
Summary of pro death arguments re: longevity progress

    
    
      Fairness
        Only rich people will get it. (no tech has ever done this.)
        Better to give money to the poor than science. (family,city,state,nation, has proven local investment beats foreign.)
    
      Bad for society
        Dead people make more room for new, other people. (consider going first.)
        Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or nonexistant)
        Overpopulation (colonize the seas, solar system, or have a war.)
          Stop having kids
          Worse wars (nukes are more dangerous than having your first 220 year old person in 2136)
        Dictators never die (they die all the time and rarely of age)
    
      Bad for individual
        You'll get bored. (your memory isn't that good, or your boredom isn't age related)
        You'll have to watch your loved ones die. (so you prefer they watch you?)
        You'll live forever in a terrible state. (longevity requires robustness.)
        Against gods will (not if he disallows suicide, then it is required.)
    

More people make more progress faster. I'm glad my parents didn't decide the
world would be prettier or work better without me in it. Einstein, Bell,
Tesla, Da Vinci etc, still alive and productive would be nice. You're
literally asking for others to die out of your fear. The burden should be
higher. Have courage. If living longer sucks, we'll know 100 years from now,
and decide then. First 220 year old in 2136 unless you know how to make one
faster than 1 year per year? And that's if you added 120 years to a 100 year
old person starting TODAY.

Man up, save your family, save yourself.

Disclaimer: I'm half way done with a book on this topic. Mail me if you're
interested. Scivive on the most popular email service.

P.S. Curing aging isn't immortality. You die at 600 on average by accident,
and if the parade of imaginary horribles comes true, even earlier.

~~~
closeparen
How about: bad ideas get to remain in power for much longer, because the
generations of administrators/voters/executives that enforce them don't turn
over.

Death ensures adaptation. For example, climate change denying oil barons have
done much damage to the world, but we can take some comfort in the knowledge
that they will soon die (or at least retire) and that their successors will
probably be a little more enlightened. It may be too late by then, but at
least it will happen.

>Run out of resources (live people discover/extract/renew better than dead or
nonexistant)

One resource we are running out of is housing in economically productive
areas, and it's not for lack of ingenuity, but by choice. The choice of the
established, whose grip on power you propose to extend. Similarly, there is
plenty of food to go around, just not enough value to trade for it in some
parts of the world. What we're missing is not farming methods, but economic
systems and power structures to implement then.

>You're literally asking for others to die out of your fear

The currently powerful, propertied generation is in a position to hold onto
that power and property forever, via compound interest and seniority. If the
current crop of 60-year-olds gets to be 600, the age of majority for voting
will be 540 by the time they get there. And we will never outspend them on
anything; even 20 years is a significant head start on saving and investing.

If they continue in their policies of environmental destruction and the
monopolization of critical resources, like the underdevelopment of city land
on aesthetic grounds, then we might not just be _asking_ them to die, but
going to war to claim those resources (and the helms of government, business,
etc) for the young, to manage in different ways.

Not to get too bogged down in the specifics of particular issues, but age-
related death does ensure a peaceful transition of power towards people more
concerned with the present era's challenges and realities, rather than trying
to, i.e., save the jobs of the last century or the sexual morality of the one
before it.

Maybe age doesn't come to them soon enough to prevent the damage, but it does
mitigate it.

~~~
gaius
_How about: bad ideas get to remain in power for much longer, because the
generations of administrators /voters/executives that enforce them don't turn
over._

But also: you can have people with literally double or more experience,
working on your hard problems. You also have a government that will look out
much further into the future, because they will see the outcomes themselves.

~~~
closeparen
Sure, but. Look at the state of the world 600 years ago, and imagine that the
people at the helm were starting to hand over power just now.

I think the world would look a lot more like it did 600 years ago. Perhaps
more moral by some standards, but probably also unable to replicate a
technological breakthrough like the eradication of aging.

------
dandare
The consequences of longer lifespan to social order are unimaginable. Even
increase by dozen of years may result in wars and chaos, especially if the
treatment will not be available to everyone. From where I stand it seems that
relatively little resources are spent on the research of consequences of
longer lifespan compared with the discussions we have about friendly/enemy AI,
machines replacing jobs, universal income and other social order changing
themes. While I am not saying scientists will stumble upon immortality
tomorrow, a serious increase in lifespan may happen relatively soon.

~~~
sho
> Even increase by dozen of years may result in wars and chaos

Care to explain? I don't see why humans living on average a dozen years longer
would inevitably lead to "wars and chaos" and a breakdown of social order.
Indeed, we saw lifespans increase by two dozen in the last 80 or so years and
nothing happened at all.

The usual arguments about overpopulation don't seem to apply to developed
countries; if anything it's the opposite. So what's the big deal? And why do
you assume that any negative externalities created by life extension
technology are inherently unfixable?

~~~
Chestofdraw
I don't think it's fair to say nothing happened at all.

Aging populations, coupled with low birth rates, are causing difficult
political problems. In my country (UK) pensions are the biggest government
expenditure next is healthcare, which the elderly use the most. This obviously
has to be paid for so you have two options, raise taxes or increase
immigration. Our government chose to increase immigration and a lot of people
didn't like that so the government blamed the EU, this went on for a while and
brexit was the eventual response.

So the chaos is already here, war might be hyperbole but a war caused by
something is not unimaginable and ageing populations would be a contributing
factor.

I feel there is an increasing level of bitterness directed towards the old.
The government panders to them for easy votes which takes public spending from
the young and my gut feeling is having policies that cater for the old is not
healthy for the long term success of of a society.

~~~
mattmanser
The solution is to raise the pension age. Just politically difficult.

Raised pension age vs longer life, fairly obvious choice.

~~~
IanCal
This is already a potential social problem with there being a link between
deprivation and life expectancy. Increasing the retirement age may result in
the poorest likely receiving no pension.

------
nopinsight
A Scientific American article on the same research with a useful comment here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187302](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13187302)

Interesting bits:

"In living mice they activated the four genes (known as “Yamanaka factors,”
for researcher Shinya Yamanaka, the Nobelist who discovered their combined
potential in 2006). This approach rejuvenated damaged muscles and the pancreas
in a middle-aged mouse, ... "

"... These (other) approaches can reverse some aspects of aging, such as
muscle degeneration—but aging returns when the treatment stops, he adds. With
an approach like the one Belmonte lays out in the new study, theoretically
“you could have one treatment and go back 10 or 20 years,” he says. If aging
starts to catch up to you again, you simply get another treatment."

------
reasonattlm
Paper:

[http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(16)31664-6](http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(16\)31664-6)

Caveats:

1) Doing anything to the aging of cells in culture has next to nothing to do
with what goes on inside aging tissues, or where it does that is heavily
dependent on the details. The article doesn't tell you enough to decide, so
you should look at the paper.

2) Doing anything that attenuates the effects of an accelerated aging
phenotype, actually usually a DNA repair disorder, almost always has nothing
to do with aging as it happens in normal individuals. You can hit mice with
hammers, and then evaluate the effects of a hammer-blocking cage, but that
doesn't tell you anything about aging - and for exactly the same reasons. This
is generally true except when it is isn't, and that depends on the fine
details. Again, go look at the paper.

3) The interesting experiment is the one in which pluripotency-inducing
factors are upregulated in a normal mouse, but temporarily. This is the thing
that people have looked at in the past and said, well, turning on widespread
transformation of somatic cells into pluripotent stem cells sounds like a
really bad idea. Cancer seems the likely outcome, and that has in fact been
demonstrated in a couple of studies in mice, but there is also the point that
your central nervous system rather relies upon maintaining the fine structure
it has established in many cases, such as data stored in the brain. Running in
and randomly reprogramming any CNS cells that take up the vector or the
pluripotency signals seems like a bad idea on the face of it.

So on the whole it is fascinating that a good outcome was produced in the
normal mice, analogous to the sort of thing that has been produced via stem
cell transplants and telomerase gene therapies. But I'd still want to see what
happens to the mice over the long term after that, and would expect cancer.

------
pat2man
> The technique, which requires genetic engineering, cannot be applied
> directly to people, but the achievement points toward better understanding
> of human aging and the possibility of rejuvenating human tissues by other
> means.

Still a ways off for human use but definitely interesting research.

~~~
devoply
You have to understand all the rich people in the world are scared of death
and will pay anything to avoid it for as long as possible. So if aging can be
reduced or cured we will be able to do it and probably relatively soon.

And this quest is as old as civilization, maybe even older:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qin_Shi_Huang)

"He ruled until his death in 210 BC after a futile search for an elixir of
immortality"

~~~
lisper
> all the rich people in the world are scared of death and will pay anything
> to avoid it for as long as possible

This is generally true of poor people as well.

~~~
devoply
Yes, but poor people can't pay. That's why they can't solve anything. Google
can spend a billion dollars on this. Multiple billions can be easily spent on
this. And it's a great time for that. So much excessive capital. So many
millionaires and billionaires. All going to die. What can scientists do to
help them?

~~~
striking
We're looking for extended life for some people, without being able to
guarantee a regular life for all.

What a world.

~~~
DennisP
Old people are expensive. If the people on Medicare were as healthy as the
average 50-year-old, it would basically solve Medicare's long-term funding
problem. If it cost, say, $100K every 10 years, it'd be worthwhile to give it
to everyone for free.

Edit: checked numbers. There are about 40 million Americans 65 or older, and
Medicare spends about $600 billion/year, for average annual spending of $15K
each.

~~~
HaveCourage
50% of your lifetime medical cost occur in your last year of life. Old people
aren't expensive, unhealthy and nearer death people are expensive. Delaying
that last year of life by remaining robust is very profitable.

------
zizzles
Every life extension discussion derails into debates about foreverness; and
therein lies the problem: humans of all backgrounds (even today) are dropping
dead of health problems at 60 years of age. Thus, foreverness is science-
fiction with our current understanding. Baby-steps first perhaps? Regardless,
many agree foreverness is not possible - and if it was - I would not want it.

~~~
JulianMorrison
It's a red herring anyway. The valid question is, would you prefer to remain
alive today? You're free to answer in the negative at any time, but it would
be nice not to have the decision taken from you by mere biochemistry.

~~~
ilaksh
The valid question is actually would you prefer to be healthier today. Aging
affects everyone's health (perhaps after a certain age) whether they currently
realize they have some acute condition (such as cancer or imminent death) or
not.

------
smcguinness
There shouldn't even be a debate between people who approve of reversing aging
and those who do not. Whoever doesn't approve... when the treatment will
finally be available... just don't use it! I'll use my freedom of decision and
my money to extend my life, thank you! If you want to die, go ahead.

------
feelix
What I don't understand, is that with ageing billionaires everywhere, why
isn't anti-aging the most funded thing in the world? Or is it?

~~~
AstralStorm
They perceive the field as moving too slow to reap the benefits.

------
ilaksh
See also
[http://www.sens.org/research/publications?research_themes_ti...](http://www.sens.org/research/publications?research_themes_tid=253)

------
known
METFORMIN also does the same [http://qz.com/431663/scientists-want-to-treat-
aging-like-a-d...](http://qz.com/431663/scientists-want-to-treat-aging-like-a-
disease-and-they-already-have-drugs-for-it/) and
[http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21704788-fight-
cheat-...](http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21704788-fight-cheat-death-
hotting-up-adding-ages)

~~~
AstralStorm
Currently probably the most impressive treatment, yes. But it is not patented,
so no company can go out and make a killing off it ;-)

Much better than the second best, statins.

------
feelix
Original submission:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189220](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13189220)

------
SilverPaladin
Next thing you know, we will be getting email spam to buy Yamanaka Factor..
look 30 years younger just take this pill!

------
photoJ
Lets hope so!

~~~
lisper
Careful what you wish for. Aging and death are woven deeply into the fabric of
society, indeed, into the fabric of life itself. Old growth needs to be
periodically swept away to make room for new growth.

The only logically possible outcome of immortality is that sooner or later the
entire biomass of the planet is consumed by immortals, at which point all
growth must stop. Imagine being the last person born into such a world, doomed
forever to be the youngest, least experienced, least powerful member of a
static society where no one ever ages and no new people are ever born. Is that
really a life you would want to lead?

~~~
Florin_Andrei
> _The only logically possible outcome of immortality is that sooner or later
> the entire biomass of the planet is consumed by immortals, at which point
> all growth must stop._

You seem to be using the word "immortal" in some kind of fantasy meaning of
"it keeps living forever no matter what". That's very clearly impossible.

Revise your definition to state instead: "keeps living indefinitely unless
prevented by accident or disease, or is killed on purpose". Now see how your
conclusions change.

Preventing and/or reversing aging is definitely good. If too long a life
becomes a problem for some reason and you feel burdened by it, that's easily
dealt with, just get a piece of rope, find a tree, and solve your own
"problem".

> _Is that really a life you would want to lead?_

Your reaction is typical for a surprisingly large number of people. It's just
a strategy to deal with the uncomfortable outcome of your own death, nothing
more. To be able to cope with that, many people end up believing all sorts of
bizarre things, such as "death is part of life", or "you don't want to live in
that kind of world". Bullshit. You're just brainwashing yourself because
otherwise you'd find the prospect of mortality intolerable.

An attitude that's a lot more honest is to recognize that aging and death are
things we ought to fight, even though as of right now we're losing that
battle.

~~~
lisper
> You're just brainwashing yourself because otherwise you'd find the prospect
> of mortality intolerable.

As someone who has suffered from suicidal depression and recovered from it, I
am intimately familiar with the subjective sensations both of feeling like
death would suck, and feeling like it would be desirable. Your subjective
sensation that death sucks has nothing to do with the objective truth, it's
just a reflection of the fact that genes that build brains that think that
death sucks tend to reproduce better than genes that build brains that think
that death is awesome. This does not change the empirical and theoretical fact
that death is in fact an integral part of life.

------
sdfjkl
Related reading: Misspent Youth and the Commonwealth Saga by Peter F.
Hamilton. A series of sci-fi books where "rejuvenation" technology plays a
significant role, its impact on society and human risk taking.

------
kickpush1
Clicks on interesting hackernews post > prepares self for opposing negative
comment > aaand first comment.

------
Pica_soO
What actually happened to the lady who did this telomere prolonging experiment
on her self?

------
jmount
It is what the rich want to hear, so there is money in saying it.

------
amalrik_maia
what amazing time to be alive :)

------
dominotw
been hearing this since dawn of humanity. next.

~~~
Mao_Zedang
world is flat as well. next.

------
grabcocque
Mightier and bloody wars will not be caused than when we finally figure out
how to cure ageing.

~~~
sqeaky
Why? Any other thing we have invented has generally reduced war by increasing
resources available to all, at least since industrialization. There are a few
exception, but they were generally intended to be weapons, it seems hard to
imagine an aging based weapon.

~~~
linkregister
Weren't the world's bloodiest wars conducted after the advent of
industrialization? The 20th appears to be the bloodiest century.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_by_death_toll)

~~~
dTal
It appears that way, but remember that the 20th century is also the most
populous century. As a fraction of the total population killed, the 20th
century is (probably) the most peaceful.

~~~
sqeaky
It is by a large margin. Those two wars might have fearfully awesome, but the
fact that there are so many years of peace makes the 20th century the most
peace Century we have completed:
[http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2013/HSR_2013_P...](http://www.hsrgroup.org/docs/Publications/HSR2013/HSR_2013_Press_Release.pdf)

Add onto that on many levels both wars were enhanced by scarcity... Germany
want more in both, the assassination of the Archduke was encouraged on by a
poor economy, Hitler couldn't have rose to power without a major economic
crisis, there were so many failings in production and trade that might have
prevented or mitigate either war.

Not aging and not dying will certainly be an economic boon. People can work
longer, experts can more deeply master their fields and there will be less
loss in passing knowledge down to successors. So economic production will rise
and almost certainly faster than it does with aging and death.

Then the emotional factors in war and death... If people stop dying and live
to see one war, they just might carry those lessons for the rest of lives.

------
biuffwbiubi
What we need right now is more babies and young people and less old people.

Babies make everyone around them happy.

Old people are racist and suffocatingly repetitive. They never have any new
ideas and spend all their time in the past. They're the brakes on progress.

Life is all about novelty. Let's have new people in this world.

------
EdSharkey
Between the theory that cybernetically augmented humans will become the "hard
AI" of science fiction and signs that a cure for aging is nearly here, I would
feel a lot more comfortable if we all started having a public debate about the
limits we will set on metahumans.

A cybernetically augmented human might gain an intelligence completely alien
(and hostile) to us non-augments. And an immortal-except-for-catestrophic-
accidents could amass an unseemly amount of wealth and control over non-
immortals over their long lives - moreso than the elites of today could dream
of.

My concern about those that metahumans will hold such disproportionate power
and they'll quickly get bored. Idle hands are the devil's playthings after
all, and they could really make life difficult for the rest of us.

I want to see what a many-hundreds of years healthy life will be like and live
many lives, but I do not want to have implants or devices that warp my
mind/memory. I want to stay human, just minus the frailties. I'm hoping that
these evolving new technologies sort neatly into two buckets: those that
enhance but still retain the essential (limited) human experience, and those
that seek to obliterate and replace the human experience (so that I know which
ones to avoid.)

