Sagecast Archive

For those that believe advances in longevity science will reduce disease and disability and extend healthy life, many also believe that advances will allow enormous economic benefits to accrue. By extending healthy years people could remain in the workforce longer, savings would increase, and use of entitlement programs would decline. Dr. Jay Olshansky talked with Crossroads about the economic potential of the longevity dividend and discussed some of the concerns of the skeptics.

In addition to the regulatory and other policy hurdles that longevity science must face, the “politics” also play a role. Dr. Robert Butler chatted with SAGE Crossroads about the environment, attitudes, and perceptions that challenge the translation of longevity science.

Many have argued that when it comes to advances from longevity research—the science is there, but the policy’s not. Dr. Richard Miller discusses policy barriers and solutions including insight into the issues faced by FDA, CMS, and NIH when it comes to longevity science.

The absence of well-accepted biomarkers of aging is a major impediment to research in longevity science. Discovery of biomarkers of aging will make it possible to pursue research into interventions that have shown promise in animal studies. While they hold great promise, there are many roadblocks standing in the way of their discovery. Dr. John Q. Trojanowski discussed the potential of biomarkers of aging based on what he has experienced in his research into biomarkers of Alzheimer’s disease.

A modest deceleration in the rate of aging sufficient to delay all aging-related diseases and disorders for about seven years would save and extend lives, improve health, and create wealth. This concerted effort to slow aging would compress mortality and morbidity and would not only produce healthier and longer lives, but would create significant financial gains—the longevity dividend. Dan Perry spoke with Crossroads about the themes in the article that he has coauthored, “In Pursuit of the Longevity Dividend”.

David Merritt, project director at the Center for Health Transformation, talks with SAGE Crossroads about his outlook for the development of an efficient health information technology system that can support personalized medicine. He tackles tough questions like what a health IT system should do, how we are going to get there, what the policy sector should do, and how private industry should collaborate.

Thomas J. Miller from Siemens poses a challenge to all of the industries intertwined in delivering personalized medicine--how do we create an efficient health information technology infrastructure? He believes that the challenge is certainly not a small task and could take decades to overcome.

Dr. Wayne Rosenkrans, president and chairman of the personalized medicine coalition and business strategy director of external scientific affairs at Astra Zeneca pharmaceuticals, met up with SAGE Crossroads in Boston. As a senior member of a large pharmaceutical company, he has a positive outlook on how personalized medicine is reshaping the industry.

Dr. Greg Downing from the US Department of Health and Human Services elaborates on how policy plays a role in the fight for personalized medicine. Dr. Downing gives his assessment of the policy front and argues for further cooperation amongst various sectors to move personalized medicine forward.

Dr. Raju Kucherlapati, director of Harvard Medical School's Partners Center for Genetics and Genomics, elaborates on what exactly his center does and how it relates to personalized medicine. He speaks about what is hindering research and how we can overcome challenges, and gives his outlook for the next several years.

Daniel Perry, executive director at the non-profit Alliance for Aging Research, sat down with SAGE Crossroads to discuss the impact that a personalized medicine revolution would have on the aging population. His focus lies specifically in what benefits it could bring the members of the baby-boom generation.

Over the past few years, there has been a surge of medical research and technologies specifically focused on keeping the population healthier longer. With advances in areas such as regenerative medicine and gene-based therapies, we are using our medical knowledge in new and, some may say, controversial ways. Are we violating human nature?

Critical technologies are poised to have large impacts on the quality and length of human life. Optimists look forward to applications of genomics, bioinformatics and nanotechnology to eliminate diseases and disabilities associated with old age, leading to unimagined health and vitality. But a growing chorus of doubters, proud to identify themselves as neo-Luddites, warns that trying to fool Mother Nature endangers our species integrity and our planet.

The development of therapeutic cloning technology and of regulatory legislation has raised complex ethical and social questions. Where do we draw the ethical boundaries in regards to cloning technology?Is embryonic cloning an acceptable practice in the advancement of aging research, or does it violate basic philosophical tenets of human identity?

American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington, DC