Earlier this year, I noted a paper by Frank Lichtenberg that correlates life expectancy with the pace of introduction of new drugs - both of which are metrics that can be measured fairly well, and are fairly well recorded over the past few decades. So we see the expected result: one fairly general measure of the pace of progress in medicine is linked to longevity, most likely indicating that more rapid development of new medicine leads to longer lives, even when that medical progress is largely old-style drug discovery and commercial development. Here, I'll point out a few other papers along the same lines by the same author, one recent and the others from past years:

Pharmaceutical Innovation and Longevity Growth in 30 Developing and High-income Countries, 2000-2009

We examine the impact of pharmaceutical innovation, as measured by the vintage of prescription drugs used, on longevity, using longitudinal, country-level data on 30 developing and high-income countries during the period 2000-2009. We control for fixed country and year effects, real per capita income, the unemployment rate, mean years of schooling, the urbanization rate, real per capita health expenditure (public and private), the DPT immunization rate, HIV prevalence and tuberculosis incidence.

Life expectancy at all ages and survival rates above age 25 increased faster in countries with larger increases in drug vintage. The increase in drug vintage was the only variable that was significantly related to all of these measures of longevity growth. ... Pharmaceutical innovation is estimated to have accounted for almost three-fourths of the 1.74-year increase in life expectancy at birth in the 30 countries in our sample between 2000 and 2009, and for about one third of the 9.1-year difference in life expectancy at birth in 2009 between the top 5 countries (ranked by drug vintage in 2009) and the bottom 5 countries (ranked by the same criterion).

What to take away from this: even under the outright terrible systems of regulation that presently exist in most countries with advanced medical research communities, regulation that greatly slows progress and increases costs, the great utility of biotech research and development still filters through to this degree. Imagine how much better off we'd all be if there were no massive government agencies devoted to slowing down and blocking progress in medicine!

The older papers provide some more numbers to further flesh out the picture sketched by Lichtenberg and his colleagues. Medical progress is good - we should have more of it:

Pharmaceutical innovation and the longevity of Australians: a first look (2008)

We examine the impact of pharmaceutical innovation on the longevity of Australians during the period 1995-2003. Due to the government's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australia has much better data on drug utilization than most other countries. We find that mean age at death increased more for diseases with larger increases in mean drug vintage. The estimates indicate that increasing the mean vintage of drugs by 5 years would increase mean age at death by almost 11 months. The estimates also indicate that using newer drugs reduced the number of years of potential life lost before the ages of 65 and 70 (but not before age 75). During the period 1995-2003, mean age at death increased by about 2.0 years, from 74.4 to 76.4. The estimates imply that, in the absence of any increase in drug vintage, mean age at death would have increased by only 0.7 years. The increase in drug vintage accounts for about 65% of the total increase in mean age at death.

Pharmaceutical Innovation, Mortality Reduction, and Economic Growth (1998)

We perform an econometric investigation of the contribution of pharmaceutical innovation to mortality reduction and growth in lifetime per capita income. In both of the periods studied (1970-80 and 1980-91), there is a highly significant positive relationship across diseases between the increase in mean age at death (which is closely related to life expectancy) and rates of introduction of new, priority (as defined by the FDA) drugs. The estimates imply that in the absence of pharmaceutical innovation, there would have been no increase and perhaps even a small decrease in mean age at death, and that new drugs have increased life expectancy, and lifetime income, by about 0.75-1.0% per annum.

The connection between wealth and longevity is strong. For a deeper historical perspective, you might look back at these posts:

• Longevity Tends to Change Economic Behavior for the Better
• Wealth and Longevity

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

In a number of countries one plausible path to advocacy for a cause is the establishment of a single issue political party - see, for example, the original Green Party or Pirate Party as successful examples of the type in Europe. The Russian longevity science community is beginning to take this approach: "On July 19, we made the first step towards the creation of the Longevity Party. The initiative group of 10 people gathered together in Moscow to establish the first political party aimed at extending human lifespan using technological advances. ... Among these 10 people were Mikhail Batin, Alexey Turchin, Leonid Kaganov and Elena Milova. This is the very first step in the long and hard process of legally registering a political party. I believe this is one of the most important things that happened in the past few years in fighting aging. Nowhere in the world ever before have people expressed their desire to live longer in the form of a political movement. ... The main goal of the Longevity Party is to increase human lifespan so that people could live for as long as they would like to and remain young and healthy. We would like to achieve this goal by promoting scientific research and technological advances in regenerative medicine, genetics of aging and longevity, neuroscience, computer modeling of biological processes and other areas of life extension. ... The next big thing we need to do is to finalize the Program of the Party. Then we have to have at least 2 people in 42 regions of Russia as representatives of the Party and have the founding meeting after which the Party can be registered and eventually appear in the voting ballots. Our goal is to influence the authorities to support life extension technologies and increase funding for research aimed at improving people's health and extending longevity."

Link: http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/konovalenko201207261

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

The FDA seems to be succeeding in the courts with regard to shutting down the few groups in the US trying to offer first generation stem cell therapies, and placing a heavy burden of regulation upon them. This most likely means that for another decade or so the only realistic way to access most of the present variety of stem cell therapies will continue to be medical tourism: "It's official: stem cells are drugs. At least, that's the opinion of the US district court in Washington DC, which has ruled that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has the authority to regulate clinics offering controversial stem cell therapies. Treatments in which stem cells are harvested from bone marrow and injected straight back into the same patient are deemed part of routine medical practice - not regulated by the US government. But if the cells are subjected to more than 'minimal manipulation', the FDA maintains that the therapy becomes a 'drug', which must be specifically approved for use. It was on this basis that in 2008 the FDA began moves to shut down Regenerative Sciences, a clinic in Broomfield, Colorado, that treats orthopaedic problems using a stem cell therapy called Regenexx. ... Regenexx consists of mesenchymal stem cells, which give rise to tissues including bone and cartilage, taken from a patient's bone marrow and grown in culture for about two weeks. Centeno has published a series of case reports describing its use to treat joint problems - but no controlled clinical trials. ... Regenerative Sciences challenged the FDA's authority to regulate its activities, setting the stage for a legal fight. In 2010, the FDA sought an injunction to take Regenexx off the market. This has now been granted in the court's ruling. Christopher Centeno, medical director of Regenerative Sciences, vows to appeal. 'This is really round one. Our position remains that a patient's cells are not drugs.'"

Link: http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2012/07/ruling-frees-fda-to-crack-down.html

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

An open access paper: "Aging is characterized by a progressive loss of muscle mass and muscle strength. Declines in skeletal muscle mitochondria are thought to play a primary role in this process. Mitochondria are the major producers of reactive oxygen species, which damage DNA, proteins, and lipids if not rapidly quenched. Animal and human studies typically show that skeletal muscle mitochondria are altered with aging, including increased mutations in mitochondrial DNA, decreased activity of some mitochondrial enzymes, altered respiration with reduced maximal capacity at least in sedentary individuals, and reduced total mitochondrial content with increased morphological changes. However, there has been much controversy over measurements of mitochondrial energy production, which may largely be explained by differences in approach and by whether physical activity is controlled for. These changes may in turn alter mitochondrial dynamics, such as fusion and fission rates, and mitochondrially induced apoptosis, which may also lead to net muscle fiber loss and age-related sarcopenia. Fortunately, strategies such as exercise and caloric restriction that reduce oxidative damage also improve mitochondrial function. While these strategies may not completely prevent the primary effects of aging, they may help to attenuate the rate of decline."

Link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2012/194821

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