The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging - Supernova: Pliki

CHAPTER 17
Conclusion: The Role
of the Gerontologist Today
W hy did I write this book?
Firstly: not just because I believe that what I have written is true—that would not have
been sufficient. This is certainly not the first book ever published which suggests the
significant possibility of great increases in healthy human lifespan in the foreseeable future,
and the tradition in which it follows is not all that enviable. Its predecessors have usually
been swiftly and roundly dismissed by professional biologists as being scientifically
unfounded. In general, moreover, that criticism has been absolutely valid. If primary literature
has been cited at all, its conclusions have generally been greatly exaggerated or mis-stated in
being interpreted as supporting the book’s message: perhaps deliberately, but more often
through simple lack of understanding on the part of the author. I contend that the theory
set out here cannot be challenged on such grounds; but that is not, in itself, a motivation for
making an assertion which is sure to be met with widespread skepticism.
Nor have I been motivated by any perception that retardation of aging is or is not
desirable—a matter on which there is sure to be profound disagreement. The explanations
noted in Section 1.4 for why many gerontologists play down the medium-term likelihood
of greatly retarding aging are predicated on the belief that it will not happen. A rather different
reason, which may affect some gerontologists’ public statements, is that it may indeed happen
but would be socially (or morally) a bad thing, so should be played down in an effort to
diminish the worldwide efforts to achieve it. I do not know whether it would be socially bad,
and I can of course only speak for myself with regard to its morality; I am quite certain,
however, that the pace of biotechnological advance can be only minimally slowed by such
talk, and therefore that this argument for or against discussion of the prospect is ill-conceived.
My actual reason is a different sociological one. Many gerontologists indeed
believe—firmly—that healthy human lifespan will not be greatly increased in the lifetime
of anyone alive today. I absolutely accept that if indeed it will not, then a belief to the
contrary on the part of the general public would certainly be a bad thing. My difficulty, as
presented in the rest of the book, is that I do not agree with the premise. In the previous
chapter I addressed various arguments that some distinguished gerontologists have
presented for dismissing this possibility, and why I think those arguments are flawed. In
this final chapter I shall explain why I believe that, if they actually are flawed, the
perpetuation of the erroneous conclusion that lifespan is broadly immutable for the
foreseeable future is extremely dangerous for society, and therefore that an open and
well-informed debate of the question is of great urgency.
The Mitochondrial Free Radical Theory of Aging, by Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey.
©1999 R.G. Landes Company.