|
SENS roundtable
2: Biological, social and political implications of ENS
Roundtable
meeting, Los Angeles, August 12th 2001
Article Details/Photos
SENS圆桌会议2：掌控可忽略衰老的生物、社会与政治含义
圆桌会议，洛杉矶，2001年8月12日
文章（Article ） 详细资料／照片（Details/Photos）
On August 12th 2001, a small
roundtable meeting was held at （UCLA）, Los Angeles, to discuss a wide
range of issues surrounding the possibility that, within a few decades,
biotechnology might be developed that would enable us to reverse all the key
lifespan-limiting components of human aging. The meeting was a sequel
to one held in Oakland in October 2000 entitled "Strategies for
Engineered Negligible Senescence" (SENS), so the UCLA meeting was
entitled "SENS 2". Full funding was generously provided by
the Maximum Life Foundation (see http://www.maxlife.org/).
2001年8月12日，在洛杉矶的加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）举行小型圆桌会议，围绕以下可能性，讨论广泛范围的问题：在几十年内，生物技术学可能被发展到能使我们逆转人类老化所有关键寿命限制因素。该会议是2000年10月1日在奥克兰举行的冠名为“掌控可忽略衰老的策略” (SENS)的继续，所以加州大学洛杉矶分校（UCLA）的会议冠名为“SENS2”。全部费用由最高寿命基金会（见http://www.maxlife.org/）慷慨解囊。
The
October meeting, SENS 1, gave rise to a highly controversial and provocative
article, "Time to Talk SENS: Critiquing the Immutability of Human
Aging", which was published
in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences as part of the Proceedings
of the 9th Congress of the International Association of Biomedical
Gerontology. (More details of that meeting, including a transcript, are here.) The central conclusion
of that article was that there is a substantial possibility that, within
about ten years, we could take a mouse aged about two years (i.e., with a
remaining life expectancy of six months or so) and restore it to sufficiently
youthful physiology that it would live a year longer than otherwise.
Given that
such technology -- were it developed in mice -- might potentially be
translated to humans, SENS 2 was convened with the goal of discussing the
social, political and ethical implications of this possibility, as well as
several aspects of the biology of aging that were inadequately covered in
SENS 1 or the resulting paper.
10月会议（SENS 1）产生了一篇很有有争议的、颇具煽动性的文章“是谈论SENS的时候了：人类衰老永恒性批判”，这篇文章作为生物医学老年学国际协会第九届代表大会论文集的部分载入（published）纽约科学院年鉴。（会议较详细情形，包括抄本，见here 。）这篇文章的主要结论是，极有可能在大约10年时间内我们能够使约2岁的小鼠（即还有大约6个月的生命期望值）恢复到生理学上足够年轻，并且比其它小鼠多活1年。假定这样的技术能在小鼠中开发出来，又假定它能潜在地翻版到人类，那么召开SENS 2就是为了这样的目标：讨论这种可能性的社会、政治和伦理含义，以及衰老生物学的若干方面――它们不适当地被包含在SENS 1中或由此而写出的文章。
The
participants in SENS 2 comprised three SENS 1 participants (Aubrey de Grey,
Gregory Stock and Chris Heward) and seven others: John Baynes, David Berd,
David Gems, Leonard Hayflick, Richard Miller, Huber Warner and John
Wilmoth. The expertise of the group thus ranged over many pertinent
areas, including glycation, immunosenescence, immunotherapy for cancer,
bioethics of life extension, demography of human aging and public and
philanthropic funding of anti-aging research. In addition, Steven
Coles, David Kekich and Kat Cotter attended as observers. As at SENS 1,
each participant gave an informal overview of their area which was followed
by extensive discussion.
SENS
2参加者有三位是SENS 1参加者（Aubrey de Grey，Gregory Stock 和 Chris Heward），其他七人是：John Baynes,，David Berd,，David Gems,，Leonard Hayflick,，Richard Miller,，Huber Warner 和 John Wilmoth。因此，这组参加者的专业涉及很多相关领域，包括甘油化（glycation），免疫衰老，癌症的免疫疗法，生命扩展的生物伦理学，人类老化的人口统计学和抗老化研究的公众与公益资助。此外，Steven Coles, David Kekich 和 Kat Cotter作为观察员出席。与在SENS 1时一样，每位参加者都发表他们领域的非正式看法，然后进行广泛讨论。
In
contrast to SENS 1, there was neither any intention nor expectation of
reaching unanimous consensus on all issues discussed. Issues that
divided the participants included the feasibility of the proximate goal set
out in SENS 1 (the mouse rejuvenation project), the desirability of public
optimism regarding the likelihood of progress, the reasons for the low level
of funding of basic biogerontology research and the social advantages or
disadvantages of controlling human aging. All these topics were,
however, addressed with great care and cordiality and many important new
arguments were presented. All participants left the meeting with much
to think about. A manuscript arising from the deliberations appeared
shortly thereafter.
|