Reply to comment
genetically programmed aging
October 16, 2007 by Anonymous, 2 years 3 weeks ago
Comment id: 25504
Reply
About us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Aging scientists used to think that the body was optimized for long life span, and that anything we did to try to induce longevity would have serious side effects. Kenyon has been a leader in showing this is not true: There is simply a genetic program for aging and death. We can safely pursue biochemical interventions that interfere with that program, and thus extend life span.
How did it come to be that way? Why are we programmed for death, despite the fact that it lowers our individual fitness? My view is that this is a group-level adaptation. It is a way for populations to take control of their death rate, so that natural boom-bust cycles with population blooms and population crashes are damped.
http://simevolution.org