Here's a question for you: why does the triumvirate of astrophysics, astronomy, and cosmology get such good press and widespread public approval in comparison to, say, the fundamental life sciences? I have to think it has something to do with the succession of scientists who evolved into successful media figures, educators, and advocates for their field, such as Carl Sagan, the present day Neil deGrass Tyson, or Patrick Moore - and I'm probably dating myself here by knowing of the existence of the latter. If asked to name noted scientists who went on to become media figures, off the cuff, I think I'd be hard pressed to quickly come up with more than one or two who didn't come from an astrophysical or similar background (right now my brain is delivering Attenborough, Dawkins, and blank). So clearly there's been a lot of groundwork accomplished over the past decades: bringing the broad field of physics and cosmology to the masses, and along the way gaining public support for the ongoing and often thankless work of understanding the universe and its myriad components.

A cynic might think that that having a massive government agency like NASA floating around for a good number of decades and spending lavishly on flashy programs intended in part to assure its own popularity might have something to do with it. I'd be that cynic, but it seems to me that most of the comparatively less popular and less beloved fields of scientific research are also ridden by large government agencies in the US - big budgets and just as much need for popular support. So I do think that there's something interesting going on here in that small sliver of the media spectrum that scientists have colonized. Something we can learn from.

To be a media figure of this sort is a career path option that's certainly open to researchers who garner either sufficient fame or media experience across the years, but for best effect it requires you to remove yourself from the business of science. The scientific community tends to behave like an aggravated immune system when confronted with someone who is both a media figure and actively publishing scientific research. Throughout history a great many people have subverted the scientific method for personal gain, using influence, fame, money, and other forms of corruption - and the modern media is all that rolled up into one neat package. Taking your work to the press before taking it to your peers is thus a grand heresy in modern science, one which leads to harsh judgement and excommunication. Consider what happened to the reputations of Pons and Fleischmann, for example. From that, all things associated with the mass media come to be eyed with suspicion by the rank and file scientists: publicizing a field is very welcome, but even the slightest hint of use of position to influence matters of publication is going to stir up wrathful mutterings at the very least.

So the scientist turned media figure must feel strongly enough about his field to want to be an advocate and educator, but must also essentially give up his work in favor of talking about what he used to do. Not, I think, the easiest of paths for someone who truly enjoys the scientific life.

Regardless, the future of longevity science - or the foundations of rejuvenation biotechnology, or SENS-like research, or whatever you want to call it - must come to include scientist-educators in the media. A Carl Sagan for this presently minor field must eventually arise: to my mind that will be one of the signs of growth and progress, meaning that it will happen as a matter of course along with (a) the expansion of the community of researchers actively working on ways to repair the damage of aging, and (b) increasing public awareness. But sooner is always better than later.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

The opening up of information, communication, and organization brought by the internet is changing business as normal in every field, making it far easier for ideas on the edge to gain support and activity. This is important for the development of rejuvenation biotechnology, as the changing nature of scientific work can speed the move to the mainstream, and allow for far more useful progress to be achieved while the flow of funding is still comparatively small: "our entire model of education and what it means to be a 'trained professional' is shifting. There's a hell of a lot of resistance from the status quo - which makes it difficult and inconvenient for rapid progress - but it isn't enough to stop it from happening. ... When the university system and the current PhD paradigm was invented, it was a different time. ... If you wanted to study advanced topics, or apprentice under someone famous to learn from their expertise, you needed to go to a university. But things are different now. Technology allows us access to some of the leading minds of our age [making] proximity to a university campus nearly irrelevant in order to meet other students and benefit from valuable peer-to-peer discussions. With the world's information available on the web, and with all of these advances in technology allowing for rapid data sharing and collaboration, how much value is there in the Ivory Tower? We are becoming a society of autodidacts, with information at our fingertips 24/7. Citizen Science is a natural consequence of that. Have an interesting scientific inquiry? Get on the web and investigate it. Learn from the millions of sources out there. Crowdsource some ideas, generate some hypotheses. Have discussions with others. Make a plan. Get your equipment. The scientific method is in-progress. Science is free for all to explore. Why waste time jumping through bureaucratic hoops when you can begin investigating what you want, when you want? Need to fund your research? Crowdsourced methods of funding, such as Kickstarter, are becoming more popular for these types of endeavors. Instead of 100 scientists chasing the same grant, why not go to the public and let them fund what they think is valuable? I think we'll be seeing a lot more of this in the future."

Link: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/4935

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Another review of Sonia Arrison's 100+: "I have to congratulate Sonia Arrison on putting together a book that is both highly accessible to newbies with no prior background in transhumanist thinking or longevity research, and also richly interesting to those of us who have playing in these regions of conceptual space for a long time. The main concepts in the book are indeed things I've been familiar with for a long time: (a) There is a host of rapidly accelerating technologies with the apparent capability of dramatically extending human healthspan, (b) Most likely, human psychology and society will adapt to dramatically increased human healthspan as it occurs, so that it will be experienced primarily as a Good Thing rather than as something traumatic or troublesome However, the book is packed with a sufficient number of interesting informational tidbits, that I found it well worth reading in spite of my general familiarity with the biology, psychology and sociology of radical longevity. ... Arrison reviews the key technological streams leading us toward radically increased healthspan - including gene therapy, stem cell therapy, Aubrey de Grey's SENS concept, artificial organs, tissue regeneration, the potential application of advanced AI to longevity research, and so forth. Both current research and envisioned future advances are considered. Then, in what is probably the greatest strength of the book, she considers the potential psychological and social impact of progressively increasing healthspan: the effects, as the book's subtitle indicates, on personal life, family relationships, marriage, careers and the economy etc. Combining common sense with appropriate invocations of rigorous research and statistics, Arrison provides the most systematic refutations I've seen of the standard anti-longevity arguments - 'death gives life meaning', 'overpopulation will starve or bankrupt us all', and so forth. Step by step, and in an invariably good-natured and friendly way, she demolishes these arguments, making a solid case that increased healthspan is likely improve rather than degrade our emotional health and family lives and enhance our careers and economies."

Link: http://hplusmagazine.com/2011/10/26/sonia-arrisons-100-plus-book-review/

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

The cancer stem cell hypothesis suggests that a majority of cancers are driven and supported by a small population of errant stem cells, and that these cells are characteristic in ways allowing them to be identified and destroyed. Without the cancer stem cells, a cancer would whither. In other words, cancer stem cells offer the hope that there are in fact broad commonalities in the mechanisms of different forms of cancer, and that this fact will lead to a unified, single technology platform and robust cures for even late-stage cancers.

The existence and universality of cancer stem cells is a hotly debated topic in medical research, and rightly so for the reasons given above. Good evidence and arguments can be found on either side. Is cancer something that can be solved through a single mechanism or group of very similar mechanisms? Or only some cancers? Or only few cancers? These are important questions, and the answers, when they arrive, will tell us whether the prospects are for many cures arriving soon or for a slow and incremental flow of therapies over decades.

Today I noticed a good introductory popular science article that walks through the present state of research and scientific thought on this topic, and provides copious references along the way. You might find it interesting:

Take some cells from a tough-to-treat tumor, sort them, and inject each fraction into a different immunodeficient mouse, and only a small percentage of those cells will thrive and form tumors. This sort of experiment illustrates a concept that has been gaining traction within the cancer research community. Tumors contain a diverse mixture of cells, and only a handful of them can bounce back after treatment. That deadly minority can reproduce indefinitely and differentiate into a wide variety of cell types, just like stem cells. And often they express many of the same genes that are active in induced or embryonic stem cells and inactive in mature tissue.

...

The logic of pursuing therapies that might zero in on cancer stem cells is compelling to many. But the methods to evaluate such therapies' effectiveness, or to personalize cancer treatments according to stem cell markers, are not nearly as well developed. Without an array of proper markers, it's hard to tell whether drugs that target cancer stem cells are working as intended. ... Things are looking up for genetic analysis, but the poor reliability of cancer stem-cell-surface markers remains a confounding problem. For nearly a decade, biologists have known that antigens such as CD133 can be found on the surfaces of cancer stem cells. But these markers are not particularly specific.

...

But for solid tumors, which account for about 85% of all cancer diagnoses, the search for such stem-cell-surface markers is still in the early days. In such [cancers] cell-surface markers can vary from one type of cancer to another or even from one cell within a tumor to another. Until better markers are discovered [the] cancer stem cell field will remain somewhat embryonic.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

A number of different research teams have recently demonstrated epigenetic markers that can be used to establish chronological age or predict life expectancy to various degrees. Here is another: "Aging has been associated with accumulation of cellular defects such as DNA damage and telomere shortening. On the other hand, there is accumulating evidence that aging rather resembles a developmentally regulated process which is tightly controlled by specific epigenetic modifications. ... All tissues of the organism are affected by aging. This process is associated with epigenetic modifications such as methylation changes at specific cytosine residues in the DNA (CpG sites). Here, we have identified an Epigenetic-Aging-Signature which is applicable for many tissues to predict donor age. ... This Epigenetic-Aging-Signature was tested on a validation group of eight independent datasets corresponding to several cell types from different tissues. ... The average absolute difference between predicted and real chronological age was about 11 years. ... It has to be noted, that chronological age is not identical with biological age and it is conceivable that some of the discrepancy between predicted and real age can be attributed to this difference - further research might facilitate determination of the biological age for personalized medicine."

Link: http://impactaging.com/papers/v3/n10/full/100395.html

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

There are a number of different lines of research focused on developing artificial blood or culturing blood to order from stem cells: "Clinical trials using blood created from adult stem cells are set to begin within the next two or three years, raising the prospect it could soon become routinely used where real blood is unavailable. Scientists are also developing alternative bloodlike substances which could be injected into the body as a 'stopgap' until an actual blood transfusion could be performed. ... modern doctors have minimised the risk of patients receiving infections such as Hepatitis A and C during transmission [but] blood produced from stem cells would avoid these risks and could be manufactured as type 'O-negative', which is produced by just 7 per cent of the population but is suitable for use in into up to 98 per cent of patients. ... It could also be used in certain hospital situations, for example in elective surgery, and save hundreds of thousands of lives in parts of the world where blood banks are not available. [Researchers have] developed a method of taking adult stem cells from bone marrow and growing them in the laboratory to produce cells which look and act almost identically to red blood cells. Once their technique is fine-tuned the team may consider using stem cells taken from embryos, or reprogrammed skin cells, instead of adult cells because although the end product does not mimic red blood as closely, they can be grown in much greater quantities in the lab. ... A more radical solution, which [researchers] say could be perfected within five to 10 years, is to develop a completely artificial alternative to blood which performs the same key functions and would be safe to use in patients of every blood type. This could involve packing haemoglobin - which carries oxygen around the body - into a synthetic cell-like structure, or using a chemical to hold the haemoglobin together so that it can be injected without the need for red blood cells."

Link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8850684/Artificial-blood-could-be-used-within-next-decade.html

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

SENS Foundation co-founder Aubrey de Grey recently presented at a meeting of the MIT Club of Northern California, and a two-part video record of the event was uploaded for those of us too distant in time and space to be there:

Join us for a fascinating discussion with Dr. Aubrey de Grey, Chief Science officer of the SENS Foundation (SENS stands for "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senscence"), on the topic of "Regenerative Medicine Against Aging."

Dr. de Grey has been a provocative and polarizing figure in the scientific and medical communities' dialogue on the topic of life extension, and the approaches that will
lead to dramatic increases in quantity and quality of life.

According to Dr. de Grey, "the first human who will live up to 1,000 years is probably already alive now, and might even be today between 50 and 60 years old."

You might look back into the archives for an explanation of the 1,000 year life span: this is an estimated life expectancy for someone who does not age to death, thanks to a rolling series of advances in rejuvenation medicine that eventually add more than a year of additional life with each passing year of research and development. If you examine mortality rates due to other causes projected out over time, you see that an effectively ageless person will live for at least a millennium under the mortality rates of today, not considering any future reductions in the rate of death by accident thanks to advances across the board in technology.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

The SENS Foundation has published a series of posts over the past year or so that follow progress in the development of immunotherapies to remove the age-related buildup of amyloid in the brain - much of it intended as treatments for Alzheimer's disease. Success here will, however, lead to a broader technology platform that might ultimately be turned against any damaging aggregate that builds up in the body with age. These aggregates contribute to aging itself, and so removing them is one necessary part of any comprehensive rejuvenation biotechnology package: "soluble and insoluble aggregates of beta-amyloid protein (Aß) and other malformed proteins accumulate in brain aging and neurodegenerative disease, leading progressively to neuronal dysfunction and/or loss. These have long been widely accepted to be drivers of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and other age-related dementias and neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease, and it has recently become increasingly clear that neuronal protein aggregates are the main driver of 'normal' cognitive aging. To prevent and reverse the course of neurodegenerative disease and age-related cognitive dysfunction, the regenerative engineering solution is therapeutic clearance of extracellular aggregates (such as Aß plaques) and intracellular aggregates (such as soluble, oligomeric Aß). Immunotherapeutic Aß clearance from the brain is a very active field of Alzheimer's research, with at least seven passive, and several second-generation active, Aß vaccines currently in human clinical trials. ... . We now have a published report of preliminary findings from the first Phase I trial in an Aß-targeting vaccine with novel properties, and with the benefit of preliminary findings of outcomes that have only emerged with the experience of its forerunners in previous clinical trials."

Link: http://sens.org/node/2437

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Via ScienceDaily: "Exceptional cognitive and physical function in old age leaves a tell-tale immunologic fingerprint, say researchers ... Likewise, older adults who have mild impairments bear a distinct immunologic pattern, too. ... Our study indicates that getting older does not necessarily mean that the immune system gets weaker, as many of us assumed. The immune system is dynamic, and the changes it undergoes over time very much influence function. ... For the project, the team collected blood samples from 140 participants who had been followed in the Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS) for nearly two decades and were 78 to 94 years old. With only two participants younger than 82, the average age of the group was 86. The team also gathered information about the participants' health and function, medical history and hospitalizations, and self-rated health, and assessed their cognitive and physical function using standard tests. Previous research has shown that with age, immune cells called T-cells become more like natural killer (NK) cells, which typically target tumor cells and virus-infected cells ... A closer look in the new study shows that participants who were most physically and cognitively resilient had a dominant pattern of stimulatory NK receptors on the T-cell surface, and that these unusual T-cells can be activated directly through these NK receptors independently of the conventional ones. The functionally resilient elders also have a distinct profile of blood proteins called cytokines that reflect an immune-enhancing environment. ... Conversely, the group that showed mild health impairment had a dominant pattern of inhibitory NK receptors on their T-cells, and they have a cytokine profile indicating a pro-inflammatory environment. Both of these immunologic features could suggest a greater susceptibility to illness."

Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111021125808.htm

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

The present work on tissue engineering of large structures, such as printing blood vessels and organs, or creating patient-specific organs for transplant using decellularization, will produce end results that rely on surgery - major surgical procedures in the case of organ transplants.

The trouble with surgery is that it is risky: major, involved surgeries bear a non-trivial risk of death even in the most advanced clinical surroundings, and that risk grows with age. Old people suffer a general frailty due to the damage of aging that makes it progressively less likely for them to survive any given surgical procedure. When you consider that every major organ is going to have issues if we live long enough without access to general biological repair technologies that remove the cellular and molecular damage that lies at the root of tissue dysfunction in aging, that's a bunch of major surgeries to look forward to.

So I believe we should look on the forthcoming phase of tissue engineering as a transitional period: organs will be built from scratch and transplanted until such time as the state of the art allows our existing organs to be incrementally repaired and rebuilt in situ instead. Eliminating the need for surgery is a big deal, and so in the long term I think that the future belongs to the branch of regenerative medicine that delivers populations of tailored stem cells into damaged tissue. As the research community becomes every better at precisely controlling the behavior and activities of cells, even that step of delivering new cells into the body may go away, to be replaced with adaptive drug-like therapies that issue commands to the body's existing cells through signaling pathways or induced epigenetic alterations, and which react to guide the ongoing state of repair.

Either way, surgery is not a desirable outcome - it's a least worst path at the best of times. In the future of medicine and aging, everything that can be achieved without surgery should be achieved without surgery, and we'll all be better off for it.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm