I pointed out a paper in passing a few weeks back, in which researchers put forward a model to explain how some species can evolve extreme longevity, or even agelessless (or negligible senescence).

As it turns out, there may be some plausible scenarios - which is a good thing, given the fact that many extremely long-lived animal species exist, and that some might indeed be ageless. Problems arise for any theory that cannot explain the outliers. Chris Patil has given this work a great deal more attention over at Ouroboros, and you should take look.

The evolution of negligible senescence:

The evolution of negligible senescence, part II: Organisms that are remotely like us:

Mole rats are no less similar to humans than lab mice are. Therefore, biogerontologists are very interested in learning the detailed mechanisms by which mole rats have delayed senescence, since it’s likely (more likely than for clams and trees, anyway) that these details might be of some practical use to us.

The most important lesson to learn from an examination of the huge range in animal - even mammal - longevity is that it is possible to design better humans with the biotechnology of tomorrow. Longer lived, less diseased, less prone to aging. That is the driving goal behind much of the mainstream work in metabolism, genetics and aging these days. It'll be a long time in the making, however - a truly massive undertaking of great scope and complexity.

While that great work is underway, we should devote more resources to the easier path to longevity: learning how to repair the humans we have now.

My attention was drawn to a Spanish article on one of the many research groups investigating the role of p53 in aging and cancer. There has been a great deal of interest in finding ways around the "cancer or aging, choose one" limitation to this set of biochemical mechanisms, thought to apply until recently. This Spanish article is somewhat in advance of the scientific publication; I'm not sure why that is the case.

The translation via Google is fair (suggestions taken on a better translation automaton):

Because this extension of life, 50% in superratones is the longest that has been described in mammals.

You get the gist, despite the breakdown of translation in the last few sentences: there are combinations of metabolic and genetic states in mammals not selected for by evolution that nonetheless lead to a clearly superior beast, from our perspective at least. Well, more or less. If you head over to the Methuselah Foundation forums, you'll find that Michael Rae wrote a long piece on this research back in mid-2007, before the life span studies were complete:

There are a lot of caveats and details both prior and after that statement, many of which still apply even with these final life span study results. It's not all completely clear-cut, as is often the case, but I can see this impressive work garnering a great deal of attention in the popular press once it jumps the language gap for the English-speaking world.

The full content of the December 2007 issue of Rejuvenation Research is presently freely available. These promotions don't last too long, so take a look while it's available - there's a lot of good reading in there. For example, Aubrey de Grey's piece on the balkanization of gerontology (PDF):

There has long been a recognition that this balkanization is regrettable, and token measures have been taken to diminish it: for example, the Gerontological Society of America (GSA) brings together all the gerontological specialties under one roof every November. But token is all these measures are: as anyone who has attended the GSA’s annual meeting will tell you, the event is indistinguishable from a coincidence of three or four conferences going on in the same building at the same time.

Alternately, William Bains' pointed commentary on views of death and aging (PDF):

The question is not, "Do you want to live forever?" The question is, "Do you want to die tomorrow?" Replacing "should we live forever" with "do you want to die tomorrow?" strips away the sheer nonsense that is spouted about what 'might be,' and brings us back to specifics. Many people state firmly that they do not want to live forever. Many say they would not want to live beyond 100. Usually they are less than 60 years old when they say it (few 95-year-olds hold this view; very few 99-year-olds). But these people appear genuinely to feel that they do not want to live to be 100. So they do not want to live another 50 years. Do they want to die tomorrow? No. If I ask again tomorrow, will they want to die the day after? No.

Also an interview with Paul F. Glenn of the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research (PDF):

The growth of an aging population will bring treasury-breaking healthcare costs unless health can be maintained and age-related diseases delayed or cured. Human suffering that accompanies age-related disease is not just a financial burden.

It's a pity that all this more broadly interesting content ends up behind the paid firewall. I can imagine that all parties involved in publishing Rejuvenation Research would be better served by a journal in which the content above - very interesting and accessible to the layperson - is open while the research publications remain as paid access only. If you want more people to see what you have to say, open access is the way to go, and those in the research community who pay for the journal will pay for it regardless of the non-research content.

Far too much is going on in the field of stem cell research to give more than a flavor of progress in any document of a reasonable length, but here are a few interesting items that caught my eye today.

Elusive pancreatic stem cells found in adult mice:

If the past couple of years have made anything clear, it's that an absence of stem cells in a particular organ or tissue means that researchers aren't looking hard enough. A steady stream of newly identified stem cell populations flows through the popular science press, sometimes one a month. An identified population is raw material for first generation stem cell therapies, often based on autologous transplantation, that aim to kick-start existing regenerative and growth processes to heal what the body will not heal on its own.

Meanwhile, the existing drug research and development community is giving rise to a hybrid school aiming to produce (or repurpose) drugs that can manipulate stem cell behavior in desired ways, controlling growth or regrowth in damaged or wasted tissue:

Building stronger bones, 1 stem cell at a time:

Aiding the variety of paths presently followed to manipulate stem cell behavior are those researchers who untangle stem cell biochemistry. You can get a machine to do the job if you only have half the instructions, but it's a lot easier with the full set.

Protein that controls hair growth also keeps stem cells slumbering:

"It seems like the resting phase isn't as necessary as was once thought," says Horsley. "Even though these stem cells are highly proliferative, they still maintain their stem cell character."

This particular immediate application - restoration of hair growth - isn't all that interesting for someone who cares about whether their organs are aging them to death. It will no doubt garner intense interest and investment from the hair restoration industry (which is larger and more involved in fundamental research than you might imagine) and people whose priorities are not quite so in line with healthy longevity. You can live without hair - it's harder to do so with the other degenerations of age, and repairing those other degenerations should be higher on everyone's priority list.

Change is the one constant you can count on; radical, ongoing change driving and in turn being driven by the relentless advancement of technology. So if you're planning on placing yourself into cryonic suspension on death, how best to ensure that the provision of that storage will continue for the unknown length of time it will take for revival technologies to be developed?

Cryonics, for those new to the party, is a form of low temperature storage of the body, vitrified rather than frozen to preserve the fine structure of your brain and all the information it contains - preserve your self, in other words, waiting for the likely technology of the 2040s or later that can repair and revive a cryopreserved individual. It is very plausible, very sensible and less supported than it should be. Just like serious research into rejuvenation technology, cryonics suffers from the mass acceptance of - and even empassioned advocacy for - aging and death we see in the world today.

But back to the question: how to best ensure the contination of an organization and its resources such that cryopreservation of vitrified customers continues solidly for half a century or longer? For added value, you'd want an organization that contributes to and helps to build the research communities developing revival technologies. You can be sure that a lot of thought has gone into this matter over the decades that cryonics providers have already existed:

One of the original rationales for Alcor's self perpetuating Board was to prevent a takeover of Alcor. Because the Patient Care Trust Fund has significant assets, and is growing, the incentive for such a takeover continues to be present today. This argument seems most effective against a member elected Board if all members - even recent members or members whose motives might be viewed as suspect by the majority of established cryonicists - are allowed to vote. Various limitations might be imposed which would significantly reduce this risk. It is clear, though, that this issue would need to be thoroughly explored before making any significant change in Alcor's structure. It is essential that the risk of a takeover - a catastrophic failure mode - be held to a minimum.

Change is like water; it tends to flow along the paths of incentive. Humans are incented by the prospect of obtaining resources, and looting is as much a part of modern society as it ever was in ancient times. The forms are more baroque these days, but the thievery as just as real. You have to do your best to ensure the continuation of resources - and the intent to protect those resources - while you are not going to be there to help out. That has always been a challenge:

The present Alcor managers recently posted an update that reflects some of their philosophy and intent in these matters. It's well worth reading:

Our staff is highly motivated and productive. We have an internal plan of action that the staff has been implementing for the last eighteen months. This plan relates directly to the two things Alcor needs most in order to transition beyond the tiny startup company it has been for the past 35 years: better evidence and professionalism. It presents a plan for developing an infrastructure to meet both technical and administrative requirements that are necessary to a growing membership.

It is good to see management at Alcor, as the leading light of the cryonics industry, saying the right things. Transition from volunteerism to professionalism is vital - it is the good form of change for an organization set on growth. Equally important is the continual critique and improvement of core assumptions, marketing, technology and business models. Alcor has suffered in the past for its failure to generate growth as an organization, but it is encouraging to see the potential for the industry - in terms of investment for research and spin-off technologies, public acceptance, and growth into professional status - to be far greater now than in past years.

For all too many of us, cryonics providers will be the only shot at a much longer, healthier life in the future. It's an ugly reality that we have to face up to and do our best to overcome through work, resources and research.