|
|
||||||||
a Department of Pathology, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio
b Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of Illinois at Chicago
EFFORTS to combat aging and the diseases that accompany it date back thousands of years, with many self-proclaimed experts claiming to have discovered the secret to the fountain of youth. With a rapidly aging population across the globe, it is therefore not surprising that similar antiaging products are not only popular today, but the modern effort to combat aging has grown into a multibillion dollar industry. It is ironic that a pseudoscientific antiaging industry has grown so popular today because it is only in the last two decades that legitimate scientific efforts to understand aging and longevity have led to successful efforts to significantly extend the duration of life of several species. Many scientists today believe it is only a matter of time before it becomes possible to modify the rate of aging in humans, with the hope that such developments will extend both the duration and quality of life of future cohorts of older persons.
In an effort to distinguish between the real science of aging that spans many scientific disciplines and which has yielded significant advances in recent decades, and the entrepreneurs who are selling antiaging products to the public with the false promise that they will slow, stop, or reverse aging, a group of scientists actively working in the field have drafted a position statement on human aging (which appears in this issue of the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences) (1). In this position statement, the authors briefly present what is currently known and not known about a wide range of topics in the field, ranging from telomeres to questions about the presence of genes associated with longevity and death. The goal was to provide an authoritative and scientifically defensible statement that would help to inform the general public and other scientists working in the field.
It is certainly true that not everyone involved in drafting and editing the position statement agreed with every phrase contained therein. However, what everyone did agree on was the importance of distinguishing between the genuine and exciting science of aging that has produced significant advances in recent decades, and the entrepreneurs selling worthless and potentially harmful antiaging products to the public. As such, the authors and endorsers of the position statement chose to set aside their differences in an effort to provide a unified voice on issues associated with human aging. The position statement should not be considered a review article, for that would have required a much larger document and considerably more references. Instead, it should be viewed as a combination of a public health message and consensus statement from scientists currently working in various scientific disciplines that inform the study of aging. It is in this spirit that we have published this statement in the Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Fisher and J. E. Morley Editorial: Antiaging Medicine: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., October 1, 2002; 57(10): M636 - 639. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|---|
| All GSA journals | The Gerontologist |
| Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences | |