Evolvability and programmed aging: a reply to de Grey.

T. C. Goldsmith
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/rej.2008.0779
2008-08-27
Rejuvenation Research
Abstract:1 criticizes me and my colleagues as having insufficient rigour in putting forth our arguments concerning the nature of aging and suggests that we are causing confusion and inhibiting research. We believe our approach is correct based on the preponderance of current scientific evidence and further that our activities are beneficial. To briefly summarize the situation as seen from our point of view, there are three main schools of thought regarding the nature of aging in humans. To people who are mainly knowledgeable about and concerned with human aging (most of the population including physicians, medical researchers, legislators, etc.) the overwhelming impression is that aging is the result of fundamental and unalterable deteriorative physical and chemical processes similar to those that cause aging in machinery or exterior paint. This concept leads naturally to the conclusion that anti-aging medicine is impossible and that anti-aging research is foolish and wasteful, a " chase after the fountain of youth. " Journal articles are still published promoting generic degradation theories. A second smaller group, much more knowledgeable about the life cycle characteristics of many non-human species, is very aware of the fact that life spans vary dramatically between even very similar species. The overwhelming impression here is that life span is as much a unique characteristic of a given species' design as any other design property. However, a core belief of this group is that the mechanics of evolution make it impossible for an organism to possess an evolved design feature that has an individually adverse net effect. A number of different theories have been developed by this group to explain the multi-species observations while accommodating the core assumption. Some suggest 2 that the individually adverse effect of aging is negligible in the wild and that therefore species never evolved longer life spans or lost the capacity for a longer life. Other theorists 3 from this group criticized that idea and postulate that aging must have some compensating individually beneficial effect that is rigidly linked to the adverse aging effect thus creating a net individual benefit. (" Rigidly linked " means that it is impossible for organisms to evolve means for accomplishing the beneficial effect without incurring the adverse effect.) Efforts spanning many decades to find the supposed rigidly linked beneficial effect have so far failed. Without such demonstration, the argument is essentially circular: Our theory says it must be so therefore it is …
What problem does this paper attempt to address?