Promises and pitfalls of treating aging like a disease

| | March 9, 2020
image asset
Credit: Marina Guimarães/Flickr
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

Over the years, the movement to classify aging as a disease has gained momentum not only from longevity enthusiasts but also from scientists. In 1954, Robert M. Perlman published a paper in the Journal of American Geriatrics Society called “The Aging Syndrome” in which he called aging a “disease complex.” Since then, others have jumped on board, including gerontologists frustrated by a lack of funding to study the aging process itself.

However, labeling aging itself as a disease is both misleading and detrimental. Pathologizing a universal process makes it seem toxic. In our youth-obsessed society, ageism already runs rampant in Hollywood, the job market, and even presidential races. And calling aging a disease doesn’t address critical questions about why we age in the first place. Instead of calling aging a disease, scientists should aim to identify and treat the underlying processes that cause aging and age-related cellular deterioration.

Related article:  Video: Tech guru and author Rob Reid on synthetic biology's power to help or destroy us

[Gerontologist Jamie Justice] said during the GSA panel that she doesn’t think “Is aging a disease?” is the right question. The better question, she said, is “Why do we have to force aging to be a disease in order to get clinicians, regulatory officials, and stakeholders to do something about it?”

Read the original post

Share via
News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend