The Guardian view on ageing research: our lives have more distinct phases than we thought | Editorial
Athe movement can seem remarkably sudden. One morning you wake up with new pains, or losses of strength and memory that you could swear weren’t there a few days ago. We don’t age literally overnight, but as research increasingly shows, we may not age in a steady, linear fashion either.
Over the past decade, a multitude of studies have suggested that aging – at least for some organs and body systems – may actually consist of long periods of stability, punctuated by inflection points or periods of rapid biological change. This change in thinking has raised hopes for anti-aging drugs. But it might also lead us to rethink our attitude to aging in general, seeing it as a dynamic and varied journey – rather than just a slow march of wear and tear and collapse.
The latest study supporting this view, published in Nature Communications, used a large number of brain scans to show that the structure and interconnectivity of the brain can be separated into five distinct eras, marked by turning points at age nine, age 32, age 66, and age 83. This study is particularly interesting.
Other recent studies of various body structures have proposed a period of rapid aging in many organs around age 50; specific changes in metabolism and other systems around ages 44 and 60; or that the skin as an organ goes through four distinct phases of aging, while the adult immune system ages in two phases.
These results are largely the fruits of the so-called “omics” revolution in research, with the generation of large data sets allowing the rapid and inexpensive measurement of all the proteins, DNA/RNA or other molecules of an organ or body. (Equally important is the explosion of funding and interest in aging research, likely a byproduct of our increasingly older society.)
At this point, many studies are underpowered – the widely publicized Stanford study showing changes at ages 44 and 60 had only 108 participants – and so the specific claims they offer about a certain aging of an organ at a certain time may not hold up. But taken together, they suggest that when it comes to our bodies, aging is not a linear process.
If aging is more acute than previously thought, it would seem appropriate to resort to simple interventions that could tip tipping points or leave checkpoints between eras intact. There is currently no shortage of tech moguls willing to try whatever scientific treatments might come from this preliminary research. Let them try their luck. This kind of medical shot is likely to be, at best, ineffective.
A more important question is whether we should prioritize interventions against aging per se. The authors of the brain stages study were careful not to frame transitions solely in terms of decline, suggesting that each stage was simply a different phase in the journey of a human brain. This seems correct. As we move toward a more granular understanding of aging, we may be able to better plan and implement the disease-fighting measures we already know, from cancer screening tests to preventive medications. Prioritizing wellness over raw longevity is the way forward – and if a longer life is the result, so be it.
