Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Tweaked Genes Can Double Worm's Lifespan 39

Posted by timothy from the wanna-learn-how-to-fly dept.
jlechem writes ">New Scientist is reporting that U.S. scientists have doubled the life span of nematode worms with no apparent physiological side affects. Before scientists were able to double the worms lifespan but they were unable to reproduce. The breakthrough was achieved by turning certain genes on and off at certain times during the development cycle of the worms. While limited to worms right now, the researchers believe this could eventually lead to longer human lifespans. So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tweaked Genes Can Double Worm's Lifespan More

Tweaked Genes Can Double Worm's Lifespan

Comments Filter:

  • Wear out (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lowtekneq ( 469145 )
    I would think that the main problem with pushing the lifespan of any animal would be that certain organs begin to fail first, organs like the heart or liver.

  • not living forever (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hitzroth ( 60178 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @12:49PM (#4537032)
    So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?

    Suicide?

  • There may be a reason... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Simon Field ( 563434 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @12:58PM (#4537062) Homepage
    ...

    If the daf-2 [arclab.org] gene has the same effects in fruit flies [missouri.edu] and mice [infoaging.org] (and presumably humans), and it controls two separate pathways (reproduction and longevity) in all those organisms, there may be a good reason why the linkage between the two systems is preserved across millions of years of evolution.

    Suppose longevity is limited in order to make room in the ecosystem for the next generation, so that older critters (with damaged DNA, or an inability to reproduce) don't crowd out the young?

    If only a few young survive, then there may not be enough to perpetuate the species.

    Perhaps the two systems are linked because when the link is lost, the species dies out, because there are not enough resources to support both an aged population and a large enough reservoir of young reproductively active critters to ensure against decline?

    Is this the whimper that T. S. Eliot wrote about?

  • overcrowding (Score:1, Insightful)

    by liquidice5 ( 570814 )
    I think that all of this research is harmful, and that's without even bringing the "don't play god argument"

    If everyone lived forever, and continued to have children, we would overpopulate the earth and starve.
    Hunting season? its for the good of the deer and such, if we didnt keep the populations down, they would use all of their resources, and starve.

    If we could double the lifetime of humans, than twice the resources would be in use, because just because you live longer doesnt mean you arent gonna have any children, you will probably want to have more of them

    sure it would be nice not the have to deal with grandma dying, but we should worry about feeding the mouths we already have before we worry about making those mouths live forever
  • This would only, at best, stop the aging process. You could still die from a disease or accident. Of course, the possibility of a long productive life might make everyone unwilling to take even the slightest risk with their lifes, which might make life dull and not worth living, which might lead one to take unreasonable risks and die. I suppose there is a fixed-point solution to this.
    • This is exactly the point raised by Asimov in one of his book series.. there was a set of humans that, due to the planets they were living on, had 200 year life spans.. at one point, a group of "normal" humans in a spaceship threatens to ram a group of "supernormals"... the ploy works because the normal humans are only risking a few decades of life, while the supernormals have a century or more at risk, so they back down.... The virtue of life being (relatively) "cheap" makes us more likely to do exciting, interesting things...

      • normals and supernormals? I don't know if that's what Asimov useed to desribe them, but surely by definition if you are not normal (i.e. what passes for normal) then you are abnormal.P.

    • Re:Fixed point solution (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Yokaze ( 70883 ) on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:41PM (#4537286)
      Ah, that's why the young people are so cautious, fearing the abrupt end of their long productive life, while the old ones, facing the imminent death, are the adventurous ones.

      To be more serious:
      Young people are more adventurous, they're less aware that they can die. Death is an "Others People Problem". When people get older, they become more aware that life is quite fragile and suddenly have an eye on their health.

      The absence from a death by ageing could make people even more adventurous. The abundance of a thing usually makes one less aware of its value.

      Imagine a possible biography of an practicably immortal and compare it to a typical one from today.
      • Er hum, Time Enough for Love, by Robert Heinlein? Not real true, but hell, who knows.

        One thing that puzzles me. They say they turn the gene on and off at certain points in developement. Is there the possibility that the gene for infertility be passed on or the gene for a normal life span? I see this as a damned if you do, damned if you don't.

  • Thats simple (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bpb213 ( 561569 ) <bpbyrne@@@gmail...com> on Saturday October 26, 2002 @01:20PM (#4537179)
    "So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?"

    Only the people who want to live forever will pay to have it done.

    (id imagine this cant be cheap for a while)

    (and besides, 200 years isnt forever).
  • I don't know about all of you, but I'd gladly settle to live twice as long for the "sacrafice" of not being able to have children.
  • "New Scientist is reporting that U.S. scientists have doubled the life span of nematode worms with no apparent physiological side affects."

    It may not be apparent now, but mark my words those poor worms will soon bear an uncanny resemblance to Dick Clark.

  • Let me get this straight:
    If the inability to reproduce is not a "side affect" then it must be the main "affect" therefore making the doubled life-span a "side affect" of their new "anti-fertility treatment." I knew those nasty scientist were trying to kill us all off...
  • So what happens to those people who don't want to live forever?

    I think that with the introduction of something like this in humans we will have a massive protest from groups on the religious right who see this as a circumvention of God's will. As such, I can see a surge in support of the right to die movement as people try to hold on to "traditional" times of death.

    I see this a positive thing as it will hopefully lead to greater control for people over their own lives (and where it ends) by removing some of the stigma associated with ending ones own life in contemporary society.

  • further implications (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Scaebor ( 587064 ) on Sunday October 27, 2002 @10:04PM (#4544521)

    This sets me to thinking about a true, built in dividing line that has the potential to divide humanity physiologically into classes of "haves" and "have nots." While the inhabitants of wealthy nations may be able to afford the kind of genetic tailoring necessary to lead to increased life spans those in poorer nations will almost certainly be unable to implement these kinds of measures for their children. THe end result could be an even greater disregard among wealthy nations such as the US for the well-being of the inhabitants of poor nations.

    Instead of merely sloughing off undesireable industries to these nations with only cursory safety protocols, these protocols may be seen as unnecessary, as, in comparison to the genetically tailored upper class of the world, the longevity of these "lesser" humans is seen as unimportant as a result of their already "inferior" lifespans. In other words, a decade plus or minus is inconsequential.

    Take these words as you wish, but i can see this as a possibility in some kind of future world with this kind of advanced biotech.

    • well but i do see a flip side to that.

      i would think that if people lived longer and thus stopped reproducing or at least reproduced at a slower rate, wouldn't the evolution of those inhabitants in wealthy nations slow down or grind to a stop?

      on the other hand, people living in poorer nations would face the tough elements, polution, etc, and they would reproduce and die more often. hence, they were evolve faster and eventually, they might become more advanced biologically than those living in wealthy nations.

      it might even come to a point whereby, the people living in poor nations who don't get to tweak their genes become able to live longer naturally than the people in wealthy nations.

      eventually, what might happen is you have a bunch of humans who can still live "only" less than a century naturally, and need all sorts of gene therapy and treatment to live as long as "normal" humans who now have a lifespan of say....500 years, without any gene therapy or other forms of unnatural intervention.

      what will happen then, is that i believe the situation that the parent poster envisions would flip over, and people in the poorer nations would become the dominant "breed" of humans. perhaps then, the people in poorer nations might even run over and take over the wealthier nations by force, who now can't even produce soldiers to fight back. kinda like the theory of the homo-sapiens invading europe and killing off most of the cro-magnans.
  • Damn, might live to collect it after all... only to have it not pay for more than 1% of the genetic treatment that got me there!
  • Dealing with overpopulation and fighting over land/resources needs to be addressed first. Putting humankind in space, building up instead of clearing every last forest, etc., needs to be accomplished before we can increase lifespans, thereby increasing world population. I mean, people are still fighting over land today. Look at Isreal and Palestine: that is about land and resources; religion is simply a scapegoat to justify violence, in an ironic sort of way.
  • having two small children myself, i just assumed that preventing reproduction was the reason that they lived twice as long...

Slashdot Top Deals

Without life, Biology itself would be impossible.

Close