Must an AGING PROCESS be universal? was Defining...

Steve Chambers steve at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz
Sat Apr 1 22:13:43 EST 1995

In <obogler-0104951308320001 at obogler.extern.ucsd.edu> obogler at ucsd.edu 
(Oliver Bogler) writes:

>The question is, I agree, to what extent external processes affect ageing.
>In other words, can environmental differences or biochemical differences
>that are inherent really change the way we age? This would offer avenues
>of intervention.

Exactly.  The issue then becomes: On which processes do we focus to achieve
the most effective intervention?

This is why a reeaxination of what constitutes an aging process is 
necessary.  By excluding from aging the myriad common life-limiting
processes that aren't universal we may be throwing out the baby with the 
bath water.

We may also be severely limiting our chances of success by assuming that
a single process can explain mortality in the oldest old of any species. 
Much emphasis is placed on changes to "maximum lifespan" as a measure
of the effectiveness of any intervention - but if no single process is
to blame then it's likely that no _single_ intervention will change this

It's possible that MULTIPLE known interventions could extend maximum
lifespan.  We could already have effective tools without knowing it.


(I_lurk,_therefore_I_am!_\ ,,,                    Steve Chambers
                          (o o)   steve at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz
(c) Steve Chambers                     1995. All rights reserved 

More information about the Ageing mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net