Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging

<< Book   Book >>
Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging

by: S. Jay Olshansky, Bruce A. Carnes

Topics include: prolongevity movement, genetic code book, innate moisture, longevity experiments, longevity potential, paleolithic diet, antiaging properties, free radical hypothesis, longevity benefits, harmful genes, elixir vitae, evolutionary medicine, risk factor model, period life expectancy, extreme longevity, genetic legacy, recipe for life, heritable diseases, human life expectancy, restore youth

More info & price

Amazon.com
In 1998, scientists discovered an enzyme, telomerase, that had the astonishing ability to "immortalize" certain kinds of cells that normally died within a short time. When that discovery was announced to the public, the press put an almost inevitable spin on it: aging was about to become an artifact of the past. Never mind that the scientists in question never claimed that telomerase had anything to do with the lifespan of humans: the discovery became a story because it appealed to our ancient interest in cheating death and living forever. A huge, lucrative industry now caters to that interest, offering the public pills, potions, and powders that are meant to reverse and undo the effects of aging. Such fixes do not, will not, and cannot work, write scientists Jay Olshansky and Bruce Carnes in this book-length argument against the claims of "prolongevists," those who believe that the fountain of youth is just around the corner. "Short of medical interventions that manufacture survival time," the authors argue, "there is very little you can do as an individual to extend the latent potential for longevity that was present at your conception." In the aggregate, they continue, we have already passed the far limits of our life expectancy, as is evident by the fact that many of the diseases that plague us today, such as certain cancers and neuromuscular disorders, are the expression of genes that have long been with us but were not often manifest, because humans did not live long enough for them to become a problem. Adding still more years will do nothing to improve the quality of life, Olshansky and Carnes suggest. The better approach is to guard our health during the years that are ours--and to regard all claims to immortality and life extension, no matter how attractive, with a skeptical eye. --Gregory McNamee From Publishers Weekly
As the baby boomers age, the number of books on the aging process seems to increase exponentially. Similarly, the range of elixirs, potions, herbs, specialty diets and hormones being marketed as ways to halt or reverse the aging process has been growing apace. Olshansky, a senior research scientist at the University of Chicago, and Carnes, an expert on aging, insert their voices into the mix, refuting many of the claims of purveyors of these products, reminding readers that "we should all be wary of those who distort legitimate science and use pseudoscience or no science in order to create and market false promises and exaggerated claims about health and longevity." They begin with a brief but far-reaching history of the human preoccupation with the Fountain of Youth, going all the way back to Babylonian and Greek myth and describing alchemical pursuits during the Renaissance. They then present an overview of current scientific study of the aging process, covering such topics as the evolutionary reasons for aging, cellular changes associated with the process and the physiological alterations inextricably linked to it. The authors address advances in medicine and public health that have led to dramatic increases in the human lifespan in developed countries over the past century, and that may yield genetic therapies intended to even further enhance longevity. Unfortunately, the authors seem to give secondary priority to the writing: there are distracting repetitions and awkward transitions between the singular and plural first person. But they argue persuasively that, taking whole populations into account, overall lifespan is unlikely to increase significantly, and that the most productive means for improving quality, and perhaps length, of life are mundane diet monitoring and consistent physical activity. (Jan.) Copyright 2000 Reed Business Information, Inc. From The New England Journal of Medicine, March 22, 2001
In 1990, biodemographers Olshansky, Carnes, and Cassel published a review in Science entitled "In Search of Methuselah: Estimating the Upper Limits to Human Longevity" (250:634-640). In the article they argued that, despite the astounding increase in life expectancy during the 20th century (increasing, in the United States, from a mean age of 45 at the beginning of the century to 78 at its end), it was doubtful that we would witness an increase in longevity to ages older than 85 during the foreseeable future. This, they argued, reflected "entropy in the life table": it would be far more difficult to increase life expectancy by curing illnesses in elderly persons than it had been to nudge life expectancy upward by reducing infant mortality. Any increase above the age of 85, they insisted, would require biomedical breakthroughs in our ability to affect the basic processes of aging itself and not just in our ability to treat diseases. Their pessimism, while controversial, provided a much-needed shot of realism in a field in which some researchers were seriously predicting that life expectancy would soon rise above 100. In The Quest for Immortality, Olshansky and Carnes present their work for the general public and discuss life expectancy, the causes of aging, and the efforts (both legitimate scientific research and bogus claims for alternative therapies) to prolong life and delay aging. The book is well written and is pleasant to read, with a folksy and unpretentious style. For instance, as case histories of how medical interventions have delayed untimely deaths and produced what the authors call "manufactured survival time," they turn to Carnes's own father's bypass surgery and the removal of Olshansky's own pilonidal cyst. For readers interested in aging and longevity, this small book clearly explains the major concepts in the field. Olshansky and Carnes show how natural selection promotes health during the reproductive period but contributes little benefit over the age of 60. They point out that it is only in the past 100 years that most humans have begun to outlive their reproductive years; diseases of aging are a recent development. Our genetic heritage, they explain, has left us with bodies like cars that were designed to perform flawlessly in the Indy 500 but whose drivers insist on continuing many miles beyond the end of the race, until parts inevitably start to fail. Aging is not a disease that can be cured. The authors describe the free-radical theory of aging and the possibility that genetic manipulation and antioxidants may affect the aging process and, at the same time, decry the often outrageous claims currently made for antioxidants. They review ancient myths of longevity and discuss diets and dietary supplements aimed at averting aging. They point out that proponents of such treatments, in fact, have died at the expected age and of the usual causes. Olshansky and Carnes also discuss possible scientific approaches, primarily genetic manipulation, that might affect human aging, and they lay out common-sense recommendations for a healthy life while revealing the illogic of claims made by proponents of antiaging treatments. Though targeted for the lay audience, this book will provide a useful introduction for physicians and prepare them to answer their patients' questions about longevity. The authors have an enviable ability to phrase technical issues and arguments in clear, nontechnical language. Though extremely enjoyable to read, this book has one important flaw that will detract from its usefulness for physicians: a lack of references. The decision to forgo references, suggestions for further reading, and footnotes is unfortunate. The lack of references will largely restrict the audience for this book to the general public and prevent it from being used as a classroom aid for interested medical students and residents. Howard Chertkow, M.D. Copyright 2001 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. The New England Journal of Medicine is a registered trademark of the MMS. From Booklist
The authors, University of Chicago scientists, research the biodemography of aging. Here they use that emerging science to help lay readers understand what is and isn't possible in extending life. They trace three types of prolongevity myths: antediluvian legends that people once lived very long lives, hyperborean myths that in particular places people live very long lives, and fountain legends of a substance that allows people to live very long lives. Such legends persist, they maintain, in today's promises of life expectancies of 120 years or more. Public health reforms more than doubled life expectancies in industrial nations in the twentieth century by reducing death in infancy and childhood. Although medical interventions can certainly extend life (producing what the authors call "manufactured time"), neither medicine nor lifestyle changes are likely to affect life expectancy in the twenty-first century as public health did in the twentieth. Genetic interventions can have a more powerful impact, but many techniques raise serious ethical questions. Healthy life, rather than simply longer life, should be the goal. Mary Carroll Copyright American Library Association. All rights reserved Andrew Weil, M.D.
This is by far the best book I've read on the science of aging. Marilyn Webb, author of The Good Death: The New American Search to Reshape the End of Life
[R]efreshingly smart and highly readable ....This book is both comprehensive and a pure joy. Leonard Hayflick, author of How and Why We Age The fascinating true story of human aging in plain English and with wit and clarity. Robert N. Butler, M.D. President, International Longevity Center
[A] great job of debunking the pseudoscience, folklore, misconceptions and false reasoning about how and why people age. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition. Book Info
Univ. of Illinois, Chicago. A text for anyone wanting a clear sense of fact and fiction regarding the medical and scientific technologies and capabilities as regards aging. Cuts through the media hype about discoveries about diseases and aging, making a clear distinction between longevity and good health and the quest for immortality. About the Author
S. Jay Olshansky, University of Illinois, Chicago, and Bruce A. Carnes, University of Chicago, are pioneering researchers in the field of biodemography.

Reviews:

Senescence simplified: Dr. Andrew Weil provides an endorsement on the back cover saying "This is by far the best book I've read on the science of aging." I wonder why. It is definitely NOT the best book I've read on the science of aging. Better are: Austad, Steven N. Why We Age: What Science Is Discovering about the Body's Journey Through Life. (1997); Clark, William R. A Means to an End: The Biological Basis of Aging and Death (1999); and Hayflick, Leonard. How and Why We Age (1994)--see my reviews at Amazon.com. All three of these books explain aging and the evolutionary necessity for death better than Olshansky and Carnes. I think what Andrew Weil liked about this book is the authors' endorsement of alternative medicine and their mention of Dr. Weil as "a leading proponent of this approach...emphasizing the importance of the natural healing and protective powers of the body in a way that is identical to that of evolutionary medicine." (pp. 146-147) It should be understood that while the authors endorse the principles of evolutionary medicine they do not endorse the use of many popular food supplements as a means of gaining longevity, including some advocated by Dr. Weil. Of course, Weil advocates their use for "optimum health" not as a means to anything like immortality. See his engaging best-seller, Eating Well for Optimum Health: The Essential Guide to Food, Diet, and Nutrition (2000). What this book has going for it is a clear statement of the demographic facts about aging and death, and some good arguments explaining why the facts are as they are and not as we would like them to be. In particular, we are warned about the "Prolongevists" who make unsubstantiated claims about the possibility of living very long lives or of attaining immortality. They begin with the Taoists and the alchemists, through Roger Bacon and Luigi Cornaro, to the unnamed "advocates of extreme prolongevity" who, it is implied, believe that "meditating and eating fresh fruits and vegetables" will lead to "an ageless body and timeless mind," (p. 235), and they debunk them all. In a sense, theirs is an extended argument against buying any snake oil (in bottle or book form) that promises anything beyond the actuary tables. Clearly Olshansky and Carnes see their book as a clear-eyed "answer" to authors like Deepak Chopra , the mesmerizing author of Ageless Body, Timeless Mind (1993) and many other books, who would have us believe in pollyannaish possibilities. While I agree that some kind of counter balance to the feel-good fuzziness of some New Age authors is necessary, I think that Olshansky and Carnes may have hurt their cause by not emphasizing the fact that humans need hope perhaps as much as they need factual knowledge. Furthermore, I think the authors may have aimed a little below their readership; witness the fact that the word "senescence" virtually does not appear in the book and is not in the index. Also, do they really think that their readers need to be advised (see page 35) that Tao is pronounced "Dow"? Nonetheless, this is an attractive book and an easy read. I particularly liked the chapter on antioxidants, which makes it clear that such supplements are unlikely to be of any value in fighting senescence. Also excellent is the Appendix which is a "Life Table" giving years and days of life remaining for males and females at any age from 0 to 110 along with the probability of living to the next birthday. If you're male and a year old all the way up to being 29-years-old, you have a 99.9 percent probability of living to your next birthday. If you're a female, extend that to age 41. If you're a fifty-year-old woman, you have, on average, 11,651 days of life left.

This is an extremely disappointing book. It is superficial, repetitive, padded, sometimes illogical, and could be boiled down to a magazine article with no loss of content. The main point is pretty simple. Now that we have mostly conquered infectious disease in rich countries, what kills us is accumulated genetic damage, and there is no magic potion to treat it. Vitamins, herbs, dietary supplement, etc. are a waste of money. Basically, the authors wrote this book to warn against exaggerated claims about products purporting to prolong life. I have no quarrel with this point, only with the black and white nature of their thinking. What I was hoping to find, and didn't, was practical advice, based on current scientific knowledge, on what I (or anyone) could do to live longer and healthier. What about diet? Avoiding toxins in the environment? Reducing stress? The authors mention that a healthy life style can add about 900 days to the average life span. Explain that to me in detail and I'll be delighted. But they don't explain it, and what little advice they offer contains nothing new. The authors are research scientists interested in the possibilities of genetic engineering to further extend the human life span. They strictly believe in science and the medical model. They provide some information on why our genetic inheritance limits the human life span and where breakthroughs in genetic engineering might soon occur. Their science is quite watered down, however, below the level of Scientific American. They often refer to ethical considerations, but take no stand. The possibilities for genetically altering pigs to produce internal organs for transplant into humans seems to enthuse them, for example, but there is no sign of concern about the ethical treatment of other living creatures. One of the important topics in the book is the discussion of how free radicals damage genetic material in our cells and whether taking antioxidants can help. Even here they are sketchy, illogical and, therefore, misleading. I'll illustrate with only one point. Stripped to its essentials, the authors argue that no one should spend the money on vitamins, herbs, or any alternative medicine product because the results differ greatly among individuals, and relatively few individuals would receive the greatest benefit. But what if you are one of those people who would benefit? The authors are rightly concerned that a lot of wrong information is besieging the public, but they are unfocused on who their target audience might be. I think they missed all their potential targets and can't imagine who would gain much from this book.

The Immortalist Manifesto to balance this Pessimistic Book? Many scientists with impeccable pedigree claimed that we could never harness the power of the atom, or land a human on the moon. And they were all wrong! And Olshansky and Carnes are going to be proven wrong too. If you buy this book, make sure you balance it with THE IMMORTALIST MANIFESTO: Stay Young & Save the World by Elixxir. Available also on Amazon. Harvard's bestselling public intellectual Cornel West has described the author as "FIRST RATE! ORIGINAL...RAZOR-SHARP." This book is to the Immortalist movement what Silent Spring was to the environmental movement, or The Feminine Mystique to the feminist. And what's most important, it points out that the anti-aging life-extension breakthroughs are inevitable, but not guaranteed to come in time to save you or me. But it then tells us how to speed up the arrival of these breakthroughs. Beware. The Immortalist Manifesto is very provocative and in your face.

informative, but unrealistically conservative: I read The Quest For Immortality last spring with some expectation that my preconceptions about aging research would be seriously challenged. Instead, afterward I had the impression that, if this is the best these authors can do to debunk the claims of "prolongevists," then I'm more confident than ever that substantial life extension will be a reality in the near future. Olshansky and Carnes agree with a variation of the commonly held "wear and tear" theory of aging--a version which holds that accumulated, random unrepaired damage, over time, causes aging. In their view, aging is not programmed by evolution, but results because our cells, though remarkably good at repairing random DNA damage, still do not do so perfectly. But in stating this, Olshansky and Carnes have to ignore some fairly obvious things. First, somatic cells have, in vitro, been brought from a senescent state back to a more youthful state. So it is clear that not all somatic cells suffer from degraded DNA that induces senescence; it is also clear that the senescence of at least some cells is not the result of random DNA errors, or it could not be so easily reversed. Second, nowhere is this supposedly critical random DNA damage quantified. Nowhere do they tell you how prevalent the accumulated damage is, how many or what genes it affects, or what tissues suffer most from it. In contrast, adherents of other theories can at least quantify certain aspects of things such as hormone levels or telomere shortening. Although this book is written in an entertaining style that is well-targeted to the lay reader, I cannot give it more than three stars, not only because I think their reasoning is not persuasive, but also because I think their writing has been deficient in several places. Some examples: (1) On p. 187, they start a chapter by saying that telomerase was discovered in 1998, and reported with great fanfare. This is not true. I have not been able to find the exact date of discovery, but telomerase was discovered no later than about 1989; this appears to revolve around work done by Carol Greider and Cal Harley at Cold Spring Harbor NY. The 1998 discoveries involved consequences to cells (renewed ability to divide) when telomerase was activated in those cells. (2) One of the authors starts the book with a foreword in which he heaps scorns on the misguided health concerns of his in-laws--not a high note on which to begin a supposedly serious discussion! (3) In a similar vein, another chapter starts with several derogatory remarks about the work of Michael Rose with fruit flies. Later, they speak of him in a more complimentary way. If the authors don't think much of Rose's work, fair enough; but they should just say so, and forthrightly tell you why. There seems a puzzling contrast between the different comments made about Rose's work. (4) Around page 192, in discussing caloric restriction experiments with animals, they suppose that the control animals were allowed to "lay around and get fat," so that the findings would not be generalizable to other normal (not obese) animals. The usual assumption would be that the caloric intake of both groups would be regulated, at different levels. There is no confirmation that this was not the case. Some clarification could be helpful here. Olshansky and Carnes have used questionable reasoning elsewhere as well. In an article in Scientific American around the time of the book's release, they paint a whimsical picture of what humans would be like if we were designed by nature to live decades longer than we do. Knee joints would be equipped for durability, not speed. Throats would be shaped to prevent choking. And so on. But nature does not design animals to hang on during an extended period of decline; and the aim of prolongevists is likewise not to extend a terminal period of decline, but to preserve youthful functioning. So it's not clear what their purpose is in putting forth this fictional scenario. Aging research is a field sorely in need of clarification of important questions that are not adequately addressed by this book.