The full content of the December 2007 issue of Rejuvenation Research is presently freely available. These promotions don’t last too long, so take a look while it’s available - there’s a lot of good reading in there. For example, Aubrey de Grey’s piece on the balkanization of gerontology (PDF):

In my view, the divide between biogerontologists and other gerontologists concerning the desirability of combating aging is a symptom of the pitifully limited amount of communication between these subfields. Though they study facets of the same phenomenon, these researchers’ actual contact is very nearly nil. It is thus no surprise that such fundamental differences of opinion persist. Whether anyone is really to blame for this “balkanization” of the
field is debatable: it exists in a more limited way even within biogerontology, and the reasons are probably the same, revolving around the much higher priority (in career terms) of maintaining prestige among those who know and understand one’s work best than of disseminating it to others.

There has long been a recognition that this balkanization is regrettable, and token measures have been taken to diminish it: for example, the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) brings together all the gerontological specialties under one roof every November. But token is all these measures are: as anyone who has attended the GSA’s annual meeting will tell you, the event is indistinguishable from a coincidence of three or four conferences going on in the same building at the same time.

Alternately, William Bains’ pointed commentary on views of death and aging (PDF):

no one will ever be in a position to ask, “Should I live forever?” We will be asked another, harder question. It is my contention that we should debate that question, and yes debate it in terms of its possible, long-term, science fictional implications if you like, but do not pretend the debate is ‘about’ whether people should seek physical immortality. It is about something more complicated, less black-andwhite, and much more immediate.

…

The question is not, “Do you want to live forever?” The question is, “Do you want to die tomorrow?” Replacing “should we live forever” with “do you want to die tomorrow?” strips away the sheer nonsense that is spouted about what ‘might be,’ and brings us back to specifics. Many people state firmly that they do not want to live forever. Many say they would not want to live beyond 100. Usually they are less than 60 years old when they say it (few 95-year-olds hold this view; very few 99-year-olds). But these people appear genuinely to feel that they do not want to live to be 100. So they do not want to live another 50 years. Do they want to die tomorrow? No. If I ask again tomorrow, will they want to die the day after? No.

Also an interview with Paul F. Glenn of the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research (PDF):

In our view, aging research is drastically underfunded. Promising opportunities must be pursued, such as the emergence of stem cell research, which offers the possibility of new therapies for treating or renewing diseased tissues or organs.

The growth of an aging population will bring treasury-breaking healthcare costs unless health can be maintained and age-related diseases delayed or cured. Human suffering that accompanies age-related disease is not just a financial burden.

It’s a pity that all this more broadly interesting content ends up behind the paid firewall. I can imagine that all parties involved in publishing Rejuvenation Research would be better served by a journal in which the content above - very interesting and accessible to the layperson - is open while the research publications remain as paid access only. If you want more people to see what you have to say, open access is the way to go, and those in the research community who pay for the journal will pay for it regardless of the non-research content.

The full content of the December 2007 issue of Rejuvenation Research is presently freely available. These promotions don’t last too long, so take a look while it’s available - there’s a lot of good reading in there. For example, Aubrey de Grey’s piece on the balkanization of gerontology (PDF):

In my view, the divide between biogerontologists and other gerontologists concerning the desirability of combating aging is a symptom of the pitifully limited amount of communication between these subfields. Though they study facets of the same phenomenon, these researchers’ actual contact is very nearly nil. It is thus no surprise that such fundamental differences of opinion persist. Whether anyone is really to blame for this “balkanization” of the
field is debatable: it exists in a more limited way even within biogerontology, and the reasons are probably the same, revolving around the much higher priority (in career terms) of maintaining prestige among those who know and understand one’s work best than of disseminating it to others.

There has long been a recognition that this balkanization is regrettable, and token measures have been taken to diminish it: for example, the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) brings together all the gerontological specialties under one roof every November. But token is all these measures are: as anyone who has attended the GSA’s annual meeting will tell you, the event is indistinguishable from a coincidence of three or four conferences going on in the same building at the same time.

Alternately, William Bains’ pointed commentary on views of death and aging (PDF):

no one will ever be in a position to ask, “Should I live forever?” We will be asked another, harder question. It is my contention that we should debate that question, and yes debate it in terms of its possible, long-term, science fictional implications if you like, but do not pretend the debate is ‘about’ whether people should seek physical immortality. It is about something more complicated, less black-andwhite, and much more immediate.

…

The question is not, “Do you want to live forever?” The question is, “Do you want to die tomorrow?” Replacing “should we live forever” with “do you want to die tomorrow?” strips away the sheer nonsense that is spouted about what ‘might be,’ and brings us back to specifics. Many people state firmly that they do not want to live forever. Many say they would not want to live beyond 100. Usually they are less than 60 years old when they say it (few 95-year-olds hold this view; very few 99-year-olds). But these people appear genuinely to feel that they do not want to live to be 100. So they do not want to live another 50 years. Do they want to die tomorrow? No. If I ask again tomorrow, will they want to die the day after? No.

Also an interview with Paul F. Glenn of the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research (PDF):

In our view, aging research is drastically underfunded. Promising opportunities must be pursued, such as the emergence of stem cell research, which offers the possibility of new therapies for treating or renewing diseased tissues or organs.

The growth of an aging population will bring treasury-breaking healthcare costs unless health can be maintained and age-related diseases delayed or cured. Human suffering that accompanies age-related disease is not just a financial burden.

It’s a pity that all this more broadly interesting content ends up behind the paid firewall. I can imagine that all parties involved in publishing Rejuvenation Research would be better served by a journal in which the content above - very interesting and accessible to the layperson - is open while the research publications remain as paid access only. If you want more people to see what you have to say, open access is the way to go, and those in the research community who pay for the journal will pay for it regardless of the non-research content.

The full content of the December 2007 issue of Rejuvenation Research is presently freely available. These promotions don’t last too long, so take a look while it’s available - there’s a lot of good reading in there. For example, Aubrey de Grey’s piece on the balkanization of gerontology (PDF):

In my view, the divide between biogerontologists and other gerontologists concerning the desirability of combating aging is a symptom of the pitifully limited amount of communication between these subfields. Though they study facets of the same phenomenon, these researchers’ actual contact is very nearly nil. It is thus no surprise that such fundamental differences of opinion persist. Whether anyone is really to blame for this “balkanization” of the
field is debatable: it exists in a more limited way even within biogerontology, and the reasons are probably the same, revolving around the much higher priority (in career terms) of maintaining prestige among those who know and understand one’s work best than of disseminating it to others.

There has long been a recognition that this balkanization is regrettable, and token measures have been taken to diminish it: for example, the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) brings together all the gerontological specialties under one roof every November. But token is all these measures are: as anyone who has attended the GSA’s annual meeting will tell you, the event is indistinguishable from a coincidence of three or four conferences going on in the same building at the same time.

Alternately, William Bains’ pointed commentary on views of death and aging (PDF):

no one will ever be in a position to ask, “Should I live forever?” We will be asked another, harder question. It is my contention that we should debate that question, and yes debate it in terms of its possible, long-term, science fictional implications if you like, but do not pretend the debate is ‘about’ whether people should seek physical immortality. It is about something more complicated, less black-andwhite, and much more immediate.

…

The question is not, “Do you want to live forever?” The question is, “Do you want to die tomorrow?” Replacing “should we live forever” with “do you want to die tomorrow?” strips away the sheer nonsense that is spouted about what ‘might be,’ and brings us back to specifics. Many people state firmly that they do not want to live forever. Many say they would not want to live beyond 100. Usually they are less than 60 years old when they say it (few 95-year-olds hold this view; very few 99-year-olds). But these people appear genuinely to feel that they do not want to live to be 100. So they do not want to live another 50 years. Do they want to die tomorrow? No. If I ask again tomorrow, will they want to die the day after? No.

Also an interview with Paul F. Glenn of the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research (PDF):

In our view, aging research is drastically underfunded. Promising opportunities must be pursued, such as the emergence of stem cell research, which offers the possibility of new therapies for treating or renewing diseased tissues or organs.

The growth of an aging population will bring treasury-breaking healthcare costs unless health can be maintained and age-related diseases delayed or cured. Human suffering that accompanies age-related disease is not just a financial burden.

It’s a pity that all this more broadly interesting content ends up behind the paid firewall. I can imagine that all parties involved in publishing Rejuvenation Research would be better served by a journal in which the content above - very interesting and accessible to the layperson - is open while the research publications remain as paid access only. If you want more people to see what you have to say, open access is the way to go, and those in the research community who pay for the journal will pay for it regardless of the non-research content.

The full content of the December 2007 issue of Rejuvenation Research is presently freely available. These promotions don’t last too long, so take a look while it’s available - there’s a lot of good reading in there. For example, Aubrey de Grey’s piece on the balkanization of gerontology (PDF):

In my view, the divide between biogerontologists and other gerontologists concerning the desirability of combating aging is a symptom of the pitifully limited amount of communication between these subfields. Though they study facets of the same phenomenon, these researchers’ actual contact is very nearly nil. It is thus no surprise that such fundamental differences of opinion persist. Whether anyone is really to blame for this “balkanization” of the
field is debatable: it exists in a more limited way even within biogerontology, and the reasons are probably the same, revolving around the much higher priority (in career terms) of maintaining prestige among those who know and understand one’s work best than of disseminating it to others.

There has long been a recognition that this balkanization is regrettable, and token measures have been taken to diminish it: for example, the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) brings together all the gerontological specialties under one roof every November. But token is all these measures are: as anyone who has attended the GSA’s annual meeting will tell you, the event is indistinguishable from a coincidence of three or four conferences going on in the same building at the same time.

Alternately, William Bains’ pointed commentary on views of death and aging (PDF):

no one will ever be in a position to ask, “Should I live forever?” We will be asked another, harder question. It is my contention that we should debate that question, and yes debate it in terms of its possible, long-term, science fictional implications if you like, but do not pretend the debate is ‘about’ whether people should seek physical immortality. It is about something more complicated, less black-andwhite, and much more immediate.

…

The question is not, “Do you want to live forever?” The question is, “Do you want to die tomorrow?” Replacing “should we live forever” with “do you want to die tomorrow?” strips away the sheer nonsense that is spouted about what ‘might be,’ and brings us back to specifics. Many people state firmly that they do not want to live forever. Many say they would not want to live beyond 100. Usually they are less than 60 years old when they say it (few 95-year-olds hold this view; very few 99-year-olds). But these people appear genuinely to feel that they do not want to live to be 100. So they do not want to live another 50 years. Do they want to die tomorrow? No. If I ask again tomorrow, will they want to die the day after? No.

Also an interview with Paul F. Glenn of the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research (PDF):

In our view, aging research is drastically underfunded. Promising opportunities must be pursued, such as the emergence of stem cell research, which offers the possibility of new therapies for treating or renewing diseased tissues or organs.

The growth of an aging population will bring treasury-breaking healthcare costs unless health can be maintained and age-related diseases delayed or cured. Human suffering that accompanies age-related disease is not just a financial burden.

It’s a pity that all this more broadly interesting content ends up behind the paid firewall. I can imagine that all parties involved in publishing Rejuvenation Research would be better served by a journal in which the content above - very interesting and accessible to the layperson - is open while the research publications remain as paid access only. If you want more people to see what you have to say, open access is the way to go, and those in the research community who pay for the journal will pay for it regardless of the non-research content.

Far too much is going on in the field of stem cell research to give more than a flavor of progress in any document of a reasonable length, but here are a few interesting items that caught my eye today.

Elusive pancreatic stem cells found in adult mice:

Just as many scientists had given up the search, researchers have discovered that the pancreas does indeed harbor stem cells with the capacity to generate new insulin-producing beta cells. If the finding made in adult mice holds for humans, the newfound progenitor cells will represent "an obvious target for therapeutic regeneration of beta cells in diabetes"

If the past couple of years have made anything clear, it's that an absence of stem cells in a particular organ or tissue means that researchers aren't looking hard enough. A steady stream of newly identified stem cell populations flows through the popular science press, sometimes one a month. An identified population is raw material for first generation stem cell therapies, often based on autologous transplantation, that aim to kick-start existing regenerative and growth processes to heal what the body will not heal on its own.

Meanwhile, the existing drug research and development community is giving rise to a hybrid school aiming to produce (or repurpose) drugs that can manipulate stem cell behavior in desired ways, controlling growth or regrowth in damaged or wasted tissue:

Building stronger bones, 1 stem cell at a time:

These studies raise the possibility that drug-induced progenitor/stem cell differentiation could be used in vivo to therapeutically modulate bone formation from a primitive reservoir of cells and that an existing clinical-grade drug can be "repurposed" to modulate stem biology. This strategy may be applicable to increase bone volume in the osteolytic disease of malignancy or in osteoporosis, where the function of more mature populations of cells has been compromised.

Aiding the variety of paths presently followed to manipulate stem cell behavior are those researchers who untangle stem cell biochemistry. You can get a machine to do the job if you only have half the instructions, but it's a lot easier with the full set.

Protein that controls hair growth also keeps stem cells slumbering:

Like fine china and crystal, which tend to be used sparingly, stem cells divide infrequently. It was thought they did so to protect themselves from unnecessary wear and tear. But now new research from Rockefeller University has unveiled the protein that puts the brakes on stem cell division and shows that stem cells may not need such guarded protection to maintain their potency.

...

"It seems like the resting phase isn't as necessary as was once thought," says Horsley. "Even though these stem cells are highly proliferative, they still maintain their stem cell character."

This particular immediate application - restoration of hair growth - isn't all that interesting for someone who cares about whether their organs are aging them to death. It will no doubt garner intense interest and investment from the hair restoration industry (which is larger and more involved in fundamental research than you might imagine) and people whose priorities are not quite so in line with healthy longevity. You can live without hair - it's harder to do so with the other degenerations of age, and repairing those other degenerations should be higher on everyone's priority list.