Image Courtesy of PxHere.
For many of us, the idea of dying evokes so much fear that we would rather approach it with denial—to view death as something that happens to others, rather than to ourselves. In his recent book, Why We Die: The New Science of Ageing and Longevity, Nobel laureate Venki Ramakrishnan defines death as something much more systematic. For him, it is simply when the cells of our body stop working as a coherent unit. In his book, Ramakrishnan details the various approaches scientists have taken to combat death, and he questions whether we should even want to live forever at all.
Ramakrishnan brings the rigor and curiosity of a scientist to his description of the many breakthroughs of the past century in aging research. He draws upon his expertise from his decades-long career, which includes conducting research in biochemistry at Yale, the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New York, and the Medical Research Council Laboratory in Cambridge, U.K. Throughout the podcast, Ramakrishnan reminds readers of how far we’ve come. Modern research, including improvements in vaccines and sanitation, has increased life expectancy significantly, he reiterates.
In recent years, scientists have attempted to fight death in a variety of ways. Ramakrishnan details each of these methodically, facilitating discussions about death by characterizing it simply as a scientific question. He explains how aging arises due to telomeres, proteins on the end of chromosomes that shorten with age, causing cells to stop dividing. In response, scientists have explored modifying telomere lengths to slow aging. Ramakrishnan also summarizes studies showing that calorie restriction can elongate lifespan and details scientists’ subsequent attempts to modify the TOR gene, which functions to regulate cell growth and metabolism, to produce similar results. Some scientists are even exploring methods of protecting control proteins from aging, which regulate protein production and are more prone to error as we age.
However, in a larger quest for immortality, Ramakrishnan tells readers that most of these results seem to be dead ends. Changing natural telomere length may lead to cancer, adjusting the TOR gene could increase risks of infection, and the process by which proteins age is still unknown. Despite these many “failures”, Ramakrishnan focuses on the valuable lessons learned through each experiment, finding more value in the journey of the research process than the ultimate end.
As scientists may be getting closer to curing death, it is important to consider the social ramifications of this breakthrough. Lengthening life span would significantly increase the world population, as well as the population of elderly that require intensive care. Moreover, Ramakrishnan warns that even if we could postpone death, we would still lose significant intellectual and physical capabilities as we age. Overall, Ramakrishnan states that societies may not be prepared for the consequences of prolonged life. And if this is the opinion of a scientist with decades of experience in the aging industry, perhaps it’s best if we, as the public, simply sit back and enjoy our lives, however long we have.