> In your examples if the treatment used allows a person to live significantly
> longer than 122 years then the treatment has altered the basic genetic
> control of the aging process and you will probably be receiving a Nobel
>> If, however, the treatment only improves the likelihood of living up to 122
> years in a healthier body then you are increasing life expectancy and
> improving the quality of life. You'll probably get rich but forget the
>> James and others feel that we should prioritize and concentrate our efforts
> on the latter research areas in the hopes that by increasing life expectancy
> by 20 or more years we might then be around when the the research into the
> genetic control of life span finally achieves results.
>> I think the genetic control of aging and lifespan has already been described
> and that research efforts to develop therapies based on this discovery should
> be our number one priority.
Just one comment: I'm still all for genetic therapies. Obviously you've got to
be working on both in order to derive any benefit from your extra 20 years.