Take a photo of a barcode or cover
davemeister28 's review for:
Lifespan: Why We Age—And Why We Don't Have to
by David A. Sinclair, Matthew D. Laplante
This book deals with the author's research and hypothesis of aging: essentially, that there is a somewhat centralized cause and that we (scientists) are learning more and more about that cause at a rapid pace--and thus, real, data-backed treatment for aging may become possible in the near future. The author describes how, very soon, it may be common for people to have not only longer lifespans, but (crucially) longer health spans. We may be able to treat the symptoms of growing old such that living healthy into ones 90s or 100s becomes the norm.
Now, I've seen online that this author gets somewhat lambasted for being outspoken about the topic and also for possible conflicts of interest related to his involvement in the patents and companies that are related to his research findings. For sure, it is necessary to tread lightly when one is a researcher, and to take limited findings with a grain of salt as a consumer. But I feel that the author has done a good job addressing this issue in the book and presenting his opinions in a tempered, unbiased fashion. The scientist in him is measured; the human in him is optimistic.
There are compounds sold as supplements on the market today that claim to reverse or halt aging. These are not US FDA approved or regulated in the way medicines are. Why? This comes to the catch-22 presented by the author in his book:
Aging is not classified as a disease, and therefore, it is incredibly hard to fund research and especially clinical trials on aging as opposed to, say, related diseases like Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, or heart disease. Yet, "living longer" is a huge risk factor for developing these diseases. Why not study the root cause and try to head all age-related diseases off at the pass? This is one of the author's main points that he bemoans: Why shouldn't we treat aging itself as a disease?
Overall, the book doesn't get a higher rating from me because it is somewhat repetitive and does steer a bit close to "preachy" for me at times. But the topics raised here are very important for society to consider. Scientific research will not stop, and we'd better be ready to face the changes that may need to be made if people start living longer, healthier lives. Will people retire at 65 and be looking at 40 more years of health? Would they start second careers? Would politicians in this class stay in power for 6 or more decades--and if so, is that good or bad? Would only rich people get anti-aging treatment? The list goes on.
Granted, it all seems pie-in-the-sky, but oftentimes technological advances come out of places we least expect. With the accelerating pace of medical understanding over the past 30 years, who is to say what the next 30 might bring?
Now, I've seen online that this author gets somewhat lambasted for being outspoken about the topic and also for possible conflicts of interest related to his involvement in the patents and companies that are related to his research findings. For sure, it is necessary to tread lightly when one is a researcher, and to take limited findings with a grain of salt as a consumer. But I feel that the author has done a good job addressing this issue in the book and presenting his opinions in a tempered, unbiased fashion. The scientist in him is measured; the human in him is optimistic.
There are compounds sold as supplements on the market today that claim to reverse or halt aging. These are not US FDA approved or regulated in the way medicines are. Why? This comes to the catch-22 presented by the author in his book:
Aging is not classified as a disease, and therefore, it is incredibly hard to fund research and especially clinical trials on aging as opposed to, say, related diseases like Alzheimer's, type 2 diabetes, or heart disease. Yet, "living longer" is a huge risk factor for developing these diseases. Why not study the root cause and try to head all age-related diseases off at the pass? This is one of the author's main points that he bemoans: Why shouldn't we treat aging itself as a disease?
Overall, the book doesn't get a higher rating from me because it is somewhat repetitive and does steer a bit close to "preachy" for me at times. But the topics raised here are very important for society to consider. Scientific research will not stop, and we'd better be ready to face the changes that may need to be made if people start living longer, healthier lives. Will people retire at 65 and be looking at 40 more years of health? Would they start second careers? Would politicians in this class stay in power for 6 or more decades--and if so, is that good or bad? Would only rich people get anti-aging treatment? The list goes on.
Granted, it all seems pie-in-the-sky, but oftentimes technological advances come out of places we least expect. With the accelerating pace of medical understanding over the past 30 years, who is to say what the next 30 might bring?