The machine-like repair of aging. Disentangling the key assumptions of the SENS agenda

  1. Pablo García-Barranquero
  2. Marta Bertolaso
Revista:
Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

ISSN: 0495-4548

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 37

Número: 3

Páginas: 379-394

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1387/THEORIA.23544 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Otras publicaciones en: Theoria: an international journal for theory, history and foundations of science

Resumen

La posibilidad de curar el envejecimiento está suscitando actualmente tanto esperanzas como reservas entre los em-prendedores, expertos y el público general. Este artículo se propone clarificar algunas de las asunciones clave de la agenda de las Estrategias para la Ingeniería de la Senectud Inapreciable (Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence, SENS). Con este fin, presentamos las tres tesis principales de este programa de investigación: (1) el envejecimiento puede ser reparado; (2) el rejuvenecimiento es posible mediante la reversión del daño molecular; (3) y el organismo humano es una máquina sofisticada. En segundo lugar, argumentamos que esta agenda se ajusta a la concepción de los organismos como máquinas (descrita por Daniel Nicholson). Mostramos que, si el envejecimiento se entiende desde este enfoque, hay una confusión interna en este programa de investigación entre la noción de reparación y la de rejuvenecimiento. Finalmente, señalamos que esta perspectiva teórica conecta con objeciones científicas a SENS y refuerza la idea de que hay límites a las aspiraciones de vivir jóvenes indefinidamente.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Andersen, H. (2014). A field guide to mechanisms: Part I. Philosophy Compass, 9(4), 274-283.
  • Agar, N. (2010). Humanity’s end: why we should reject radical enhancement. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Bernardes de Jesus, et al. (2012). Telomerase gene therapy in adult and old mice delays aging and increases longevity without increasing cancer. EMBO Molecular Medicine, 4(8), 691-704.
  • Blackburn, E.,  & Epel, E. (2017). The telomere effect: a revolutionary approach to living younger, healthier, longer. New York: Grand Central Publishing.
  • Blasco, M. A., & Salomone, M. G. (2016). Morir joven, a los 140. Barcelona: Paidós.
  • Bostrom, N. (2005). The fable of the dragon tyrant. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(5), 273-277.
  • Caplan, A. L. (2005). Death as an unnatural process: Why is it wrong to seek a cure for ageing? EMBO Reports, 6(S1), S72-S75.
  • de Grey, A. D. N. (2003). The foreseeability of real anti-aging medicine: Focusing the debate. Experimental Gerontology, 38(9), 927-934.
  • de Grey, A. D. N. (2004). Escape velocity: Why the prospect of extreme human life extension matters now. PLoS Biology, 2(6),723-726.
  • de Grey, A. D. N. (2005). Life extension, human rights, and the rational refinement of repugnance. Journal of Medical Ethics, 31(11), 659-663.
  • de Grey, A. D. N. (2008a). Combating the Tithonus error: What works? Rejuvenation Research, 11(4), 713- 715.
  • de Grey, A. D. N. (2008b). Man, machines, manufacturing, and maintenance: Merits of a much-maligned metaphor. Rejuvenation Research, 11(2), 277-279.
  • de Grey, A. D. N. (2013). The desperate need for a biomedically useful definition of aging. Rejuvenation Research, 16(2), 89-90.
  • de Grey, A. D. N., & Rae, M. (2007). Ending aging: the rejuvenation breakthroughs that could reverse human aging in our lifetime. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • de Grey, A. D. N, et al. (2002). Time to talk SENS: Critiquing the immutability of human aging. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 959, 452-462.
  • de Winter, G. (2015). Aging as disease. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 18(2), 237-243.
  • Davis, J. K. (2018). New Methuselahs: the ethics of life extension. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  • Diéguez, A. (2021). Cuerpos inadecuados: el desafío transhumanista a la filosofía. Barcelona: Herder Editorial.
  • Donate, L. E.,  & Blasco, M. A. (2011). Telomeres in cancer and ageing. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 366(1561), 76-84.
  • Dong, X., Milholland, B., & Vijg, J. (2016). Evidence for a limit to human lifespan. Nature, 538(7624), 257- 259.
  • Dupré, J. (2020). Processes within processes: A dynamic account of living beings and its implications for understanding the human individual. In A. S. Meincke & J. Dupré (Eds.). Biological identity (pp. 149-166). London: Routledge.
  • Dupré, J., & Nicholson, D. J. (2018). A manifesto for a processual philosophy of biology. In D. J. Nicholson & J. Dupré (Eds.). Everything flows: towards a processual philosophy of biology (pp. 3-45). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • García-Barranquero, P. (2021). Transhumanist immortality: Understanding the dream as a nightmare. Scientia et Fides, 9(1), 177-196.
  • García-Barranquero, P. (2022). Beyond the weak and strong life extension division: “Don’t add years to live if you cannot add life to those years”. ARBOR Ciencia, Pensamiento y Cultura, 198(805), e654.
  • Glennan, S. (2002). Rethinking mechanistic explanation. Philosophy of Science, 69(1): S342-S353.
  • Han, J, et al. (2009). A prospective study of telomere length and the risk of skin cancer. Journal of Investigative Dermatology, 129(2), 415-421.
  • Hauskeller, M. (2014). Better humans?: understanding the enhancement project. Durham, NC: Routledge.
  • Hayflick, L. (2004). “Anti-aging” is an oxymoron. The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences, 59(6), B573-B578.
  • Hayflick, L. (2007). Biological aging is no longer an unsolved problem. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1100(1).
  • Holliday, R. (2009). The extreme arrogance of anti-aging medicine. Biogerontology, 10(2), 223-228.
  • Howick, J., Glasziou, P., & Aronson, J. K. (2013). Problems with using mechanisms to solve the problem of extrapolation. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 34(4), 275-291.
  • Juengst, E. T., Binstock, R. H., Mehlman, M., Post, S. G., & Whitehouse, P. (2003). Biogerontology, “anti-aging medicine,” and the challenges of human enhancement. Hastings Center Report, 33(4), 21-30.
  • Koplin, J. J., Gyngell, C.,  & Savulescu, J. (2020). Germline gene editing and the precautionary principle. Bioethics, 34(1), 49-59.
  • Kurzweil, R. (2005). The singularity is near: when humans transcend biology. New York: Penguin.
  • Le Bourg, E. (2002). A public debate about the feasibility of reversing human ageing could be detrimental. BioEssays, 25(1), 93-94.
  • Le Bourg, E. (2013). Obsolete ideas and logical confusions can be obstacles for biogerontology research. Biogerontology, 14(2), 221-227.
  • Lemoine, M. (2020a). Defining aging. Biology & Philosophy, 35(5).
  • Lemoine, M. (2020b). Immortalism: The SENS Program. Uploaded on September 13th. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFxDFYymOyE. Last seen on November 25th at 3:30 p.m. (2022).
  • Machamer, P., Darden, L., & Craver, C. F. (2000). Thinking about mechanisms. Philosophy of Science, 67, 1-25.
  • McNally, E. J., Luncsford, P. J., & Armanios, M. (2019). Long telomeres and cancer risk: The price of cellular immortality. The Journal of Clinical Investigation, 129(9), 3474-3481.
  • Medawar, P B. (1952). An unsolved problem in biology. London: Lewis.
  • Milholland, B.,  & Vijg, J. (2022). Why Gilgamesh failed: The mechanistic basis of the limits to human lifespan. Nature Aging, 2(10), 878-884.
  • Müezzinler, A., Zaineddin, A. K., & Brenner, H. (2013). A systematic review of leukocyte telomere length and age in adults. Ageing Research Reviews, 12(2), 509-519.
  • Nicholson, D. J. (2012). The concept of mechanism in biology. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 43(1), 152-163.
  • Nicholson, D. J. (2013). Organisms ≠ machines. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 44(4), 669-678.
  • Oeppen, J., & Vaupel, J. W. (2002). Broken limits to life expectancy. Science, 296(5570), 1029-1031.
  • Olshansky, S. J., Carnes, B. A.,  & Désesquelles, A. (2001). Prospects for human longevity. Science, 291(5508), 1491-1492.
  • Pérez-González, S. (2019). The search for generality in the notion of mechanism. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, 38(3), 77-94.
  • Rattan, S. I. (2020). Naive extrapolations, overhyped claims and empty promises in ageing research and interventions need avoidance. Biogerontology, 21(4), 415-421.
  • Saborido, C., & García-Barranquero, P. (2022). Is aging a disease? The theoretical definition of aging in the light of the philosophy of medicine. The Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 47(6), 770-783.
  • Schramme, T. (2013). ‘I hope that I get old before I die’: Ageing and the concept of disease. Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics, 34(3), 171-187.
  • Sinclair, D. A., & LaPlante, M. D. (2019). Lifespan: why we age—and why we don’t have to. London: Atria
  • Books. Varela, E., Muñoz-Lorente, M. A., Tejera, A. M., Ortega, S.,  & Blasco, M. A. (2016). Generation of mice with longer and better preserved telomeres in the absence of genetic manipulations. Nature Communications, 7(1), 1-16.
  • Vijg, J., & de Grey, A. D. N. (2014). Innovating aging: Promises and pitfalls on the road to life extension. Gerontology, 60(4), 373-380.
  • Wareham, C. S. (2016). The transhumanist prospect: Developing technology to extend the human lifespan. In G, Scarre (Ed). The palgrave handbook of the philosophy of aging (pp. 517-538). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Warner, H. R. (2006). Scientific and ethical concerns regarding engineering human longevity. Rejuvenation Research, 9(4), 440-442.
  • Wood, D. (2016). The abolition of aging. The forthcoming radical extension of healthy human longevity. London: Delta Wisdom.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet