http://www.labspaces...in___st_century
This is good to see. Much more money needs to be focused on this aspect of human health. I think we are at a turning point. A new paradigm. Resveratrol is just the beginning I think.
Posted 09 July 2008 - 04:55 PM
Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:39 PM
Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:53 PM
Posted 09 July 2008 - 06:57 PM
Article Abstract at BMJ
I wonder if this is the "new statement" by leading gerontologists, that was mentioned at UABBA.
Resveratrol could be beneficial, but it is just a tiny part of the overall picture.
Posted 09 July 2008 - 07:27 PM
Posted 09 July 2008 - 08:28 PM
Copyright law applies at Imminst just the same as society at large. If you could post some short choice quotes, that would be nice.
Posted 10 July 2008 - 02:48 AM
Article Abstract at BMJ
I wonder if this is the "new statement" by leading gerontologists, that was mentioned at UABBA.
We are not calling for the modification of human genes to extend healthy life—that would not be practical, useful, or ethical. However, investigating how genetic mutations influence the basic rate of ageing is likely to provide important clues about how to develop drugs that do much the same thing[15,16].
Posted 10 July 2008 - 10:47 PM
We are not calling for the modification of human genes to extend healthy life—that would not be practical, useful, or ethical.
Maestro949: I don't understand how modifying genes is any different than modifying their downstream protein product. Why would ethical issues would be called into question here?
Posted 11 July 2008 - 02:47 AM
If something goes wrong, it's a lot easier to back off a pharmacologic treatment. If it's a germline modification that's being discussed, then a lot of people freak out because now you're messing with the species, or creating a new one. Eventually we are going to have to face that issue.I don't understand how modifying genes is any different than modifying their downstream protein product. Why would ethical issues would be called into question here?
Posted 11 July 2008 - 04:17 AM
Posted 11 July 2008 - 01:32 PM
If something goes wrong, it's a lot easier to back off a pharmacologic treatment.I don't understand how modifying genes is any different than modifying their downstream protein product. Why would ethical issues would be called into question here?
If it's a germline modification that's being discussed, then a lot of people freak out because now you're messing with the species, or creating a new one. Eventually we are going to have to face that issue.
Posted 11 July 2008 - 05:38 PM
If something goes wrong, it's a lot easier to back off a pharmacologic treatment.I don't understand how modifying genes is any different than modifying their downstream protein product. Why would ethical issues would be called into question here?
That makes sense. I think we need to learn a lot more about the genome anyway before we're successful in making any significant modifications but it shouldn't be ruled out for longer-term strategies which these comments indicate.If it's a germline modification that's being discussed, then a lot of people freak out because now you're messing with the species, or creating a new one. Eventually we are going to have to face that issue.
I was thinking more along the lines of genes within somatic cells but I think you're right, once we start fixing birth defects and diseases in the germline we'll be on a slippery slope. If a combination of gene modifications are found that can significantly extend life it'll probably just be another checkbox on the website's form when ordering your designer baby.
Edited by maxwatt, 11 July 2008 - 05:39 PM.
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users