wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Fountains of Youth

Friday, June 15, 2007

Dr. Cynthia Kenyon looks at the genes of tiny worms, and discovers that aging may be a battle between good and evil. A literal struggle between two genes (who she calls): The Grim Reaper gene vs. The Fountain of Youth gene. And by fixing the match, she and her team at UCSF have found they can take the worms, and more than DOUBLE their lifespan. She wonders if her research may be applicable to humans. And what would a society look like if we could all live twice as long? Well, Japan may be the canary in the coal mine, because it has the fastest aging population in the whole world. Reporter Jocelyn Ford takes us there, on a tour through street fairs, nursing homes, and robot factories, to see how a society supports an aging population.

"Elixir" is real
Paro the Robot
Slideshow: Paro and Granny


Comments

  • [1] Andrew from W-field, NJ September 25, 2007 - 09:21AM

    Are there any references for the tradition of 'Obaa-siteh' that was introduced in this segment? I can't find it anywhere.


  • [2] Robert October 30, 2007 - 06:57PM

    I'm writing a paper on the -alteration of genes for less aging and longer life- for a class. Any additional information or sites where I can find additional information?

    Thanks-


  • [3] John December 06, 2007 - 01:02PM

    I was intrigued by the Mortality podcast, but I was also disappointed that you did not take it as far as you could have. Unlike other RadioLab broadcasts, I was left with many unasked (and unanswered) questions.

    For example, if the worms can have their life extended and be youthful and energetic, then things become an issue of morbidity not mortality? Part of the problem of old age as clearly demonstrate in the broadcast is inability to care for oneself, but the worm experiment seems to suggest that one can remain vigorous till the end. What would it mean to have an aged, yet functional society? Why would you need to get rid of the aged if they can still care for themselves?

    Also, what evolutionary benefit is there to aging? Why would there be that gene that suppresses the youthful genes? Also, what is the relationship with reproduction and youth? Do people who don't reproduce stay more youthful? How about pets who are spayed before sexual maturity? What is the relationship between reproduction and aging? (The worm segment talked about greater youthfulness related to inability to reproduce?)


  • [4] David Olson from Lake Forest IL July 31, 2008 - 12:27AM

    In this segment of the program, you had on a professor from UCSF who claimed that rats have a lifespan of 3 years, and squirrels a lifespan of 25 years. I have been unable to verify that long a span for squirrels; most internet sites talk about spans of perhaps 5 or 6 years, which seems on the face of it more reasonable. I'm just curious whether there is verification of the 25 year claim. Thanks.


  • [5] Rozanne D. from Dallas April 30, 2009 - 10:03AM

    I also thought the comment of a 25 year lifespan for squirrels was odd, and I couldn't find any information anywhere else to back up this claim. Some sources say that squirrels can live a maximum life span of 10 years. I really wish I knew where the RadioLab guys got this info.


  • [6] susan from new york city June 18, 2009 - 02:03PM

    I'm with John on the juxtaposition of the doubling the life worms span with the 'too many old people' piece as depicted in Japan. The idea of life span becoming longer is that the quality life stays better for longer too, right? If the gene that keeps you 'youthful' is not being squashed and the 'death' gene that creates infirmity and illness is being suppressed then isn't the question of who's going to take care of the old people a moot point since they should be able to take care of themselves? The idea isn't to have more old people but to have people stay young for longer periods of time. What I think is a more interesting debate is the fact that people would need to be having less children if our life spans increased so that we don't over tax our natural resources. Then the question becomes is it better to have people living longer who are theoretically becoming wiser with experience or is it more valuable to introduce new fresh life into society, a constant steam of less experienced people who take different kinds of risks. What is better for humanity at large? And would we be able to agree as a species how to conduct ourselves to ensure survival?


Leave a Comment

Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. WNYC reserves the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the WNYC.org Comment Guidelines before posting.

Your comment


* required
The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited email and will not be sold to a third party.
 
Back to Episode