Just One Question

There's a great story here on a scientist working to, in his words, "reverse aging" by addressing the shortening of telomeres:
A visiting American scientist says he is close to discovering a way to reverse the aging process. 
Dr Bill Andrews believes one day people will live to 125, or even 150. 
He believes the secret lies in what are called telomeres, found at the ends of our chromosomes. 
As we age and our cells divide, the telomeres become damaged. 
Dr Andrews is working on a medicine to lengthen them - and our lives - perhaps until we are 120. 
"I am obsessed with trying to get this drug available as soon as possible, for myself, for my family, for my investors, and make it available to everybody." 
"It won't just make you look younger, it will make you feel younger and be younger," he says.
I just have one question about this -- why the upper limit of 120 or 150 or anything? If the shortening of telomeres are the reason we age (probably not all there is to it) and he is closing in on a reliable way to make them longer (apparently it only works up to a point?), why can't we just go on reversing aging indefinitely?

In any case, I hope he really is close. And even if the proposed treatment is "only" able to extend life to 120 or 150 -- that gives us time to get to the next breakthrough, now doesn't it?

Comments

Popular Posts