{"id":340345,"date":"2026-03-21T06:37:12","date_gmt":"2026-03-21T06:37:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/340345\/"},"modified":"2026-03-21T06:37:12","modified_gmt":"2026-03-21T06:37:12","slug":"100-experts-were-unable-to-agree-on-whether-aging-is-an-illness-or-when-it-begins-health","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/340345\/","title":{"rendered":"100 experts were unable to agree on whether aging is an illness, or when it begins | Health"},"content":{"rendered":"

What exactly is aging? The question seems obvious, but perhaps it\u2019s not, given that the organizers of a large scientific conference on the subject decided to pose the query to participating experts. After a week of dozens of presentations and talks during the Gordon Research Conference in Newry, Maine, 103 attendees responded to this and eight other questions that looked to gauge consensus within the industry. They received up to 10 different kinds of answers, of which the most popular was returned by just 30% of respondents. In reality, none of their study\u2019s nine questions \u2014 which included what causes aging, when it starts and what constitutes rejuvenation<\/a> \u2014 received an answer with more than 50% support from respondents. Consensus proved so elusive that respondents weren\u2019t even in agreement on whether it was necessary in the first place.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe most prevalent human mortality risk factor \u2014 aging \u2014 seems to still be hidden in the mist,\u201d states the article summing up the survey\u2019s results that was published in the journal PNAS Nexus<\/a> and received coverage in Nature. The study has 82 co-authors, and recognizes that no treatment has been proven to slow the aging process in humans. The text also warns that, \u201cWhen discussing the biology of aging with colleagues, we often assume we are talking about the same process, but clearly, we are not.\u201d How can such an important process lack even an agreed-upon definition?<\/p>\n

\u201cThis study aims to shake things up, but it stems from a desire to self-punish. Of course there are variations, but there is great consensus on aging,\u201d says Manuel Collado, group leader of the cell senescence, cancer and aging laboratory at the Spanish National Research Center\u2019s National Center for Biotechnology (CNB-CSIC) and Center for Research in Molecular Medicine and Chronic Diseases (CiMUS) at the University of Santiago de Compostela. Mariona Jov\u00e9, professor at the University of Lleida, scientist at the Lleida Biomedical Research Institute and member of the biological sciences committee of the Spanish Society of Geriatrics and Gerontology (SEGG), says she is \u201csurprised\u201d by the results, because \u201cpretty much everyone involved explains it in a similar way.\u201d Still, for Juan Manuel P\u00e9rez Castej\u00f3n, a geriatrician and vice-president of SEGG itself, although \u201cwhile there is a consensus that aging can be studied experimentally, the ambiguity evident in the research may hinder studies and fragment project funding, due to the lack of a common roadmap.\u201d<\/p>\n

Beyond the existence of a consensus and its importance, what emerges upon reading through the survey\u2019s questions and answers is the complexity of aging and its science. The study nods at its current state, its peculiarities of language, and the potential for debate regarding the opportunities and perhaps, obstacles contained in its philosophy and possibility of \u201cexcess.\u201d<\/p>\n

Questions of discord<\/p>\n

So what is aging<\/a>? \u201cA loss of functionality of the cells and tissues with the passage of time,\u201d sums up Collado. \u201cA set of harmful changes that affect cells, organs and systems and leads to a loss of function and an increased risk of developing diseases,\u201d Jov\u00e9 responds, in somewhat greater detail. Both definitions take function into account, and would be included in the most common group of responses given in the study, which accounted for 30%. But the study\u2019s authors emphasize that there was no consensus on this point: among the different groups of responses, there were also those who focused on the accumulation of damage, others on overall changes, on health status, or on the increased risk of disease and mortality. A few defined the concept with a generic \u201cdeviation from the ideal state.\u201d<\/p>\n

And what of causes? \u201cWe know of many factors that influence aging, but we don\u2019t know its ultimate reason,\u201d admits Jov\u00e9. For Collado, \u201cthere are many causes that ultimately lead to a general imbalance.\u201d In the survey, the most common response to this query \u2014 provided by some 30% of those surveyed \u2014 had to do with the accumulation of damage. Others, however, referred to evolutionary issues, molecular factors or more general factors. Six people provided answers that were similar to Jov\u00e9\u2019s, with a more-or-less succinct \u201cI don\u2019t know.\u201d For the authors, this lack of consensus on the definition and causes of aging \u201cwould clearly point to different research strategies and objectives.\u201d From this, they conclude that \u201cachieving a more unified understanding could promote progress in the field.\u201d<\/p>\n

This apparent lack of consensus has been around for a while. It was already being forecasted in 2020 by a team of Canadian researchers, who went even further by denying the possibility that a single word could define the concept. \u201cWe have a word to refer to aging, so we assume that science will prove us right and provide us with a phenomenon that fits our word. And, in a colloquial sense, this is undoubtedly true: no one can doubt that we see ourselves, our relatives and our friends aging. But is this colloquial usage scientifically justified? Is there really a \u2018thing\u2019 or a phenomenon we can call aging?\u201d asked the authors, who were led by biologist Alan Cohen, in an article titled \u201cWhat if there\u2019s no such thing as \u2018aging\u2019?\u201d<\/p>\n

This Canadian team did not equivocate: \u201cWe argue here that our understanding of the biology is now sufficient to say definitively that this is not the case, that from a scientific perspective there is no such thing as aging, but rather a collection of disparate phenomena and mechanisms \u2013 sometimes interacting with each other \u2013 that relate in one way or another to our colloquial sense of the word. Accordingly, our desire to find a single reality of aging has created a great deal of confusion in the field.\u201d<\/p>\n

Their argument echoes the \u201cWhat\u2019s in a name?\u201d posed to Romeo by Juliet, following her assertion \u201cThou art thyself though, not a Montague.\u201d Or as the poet An\u00edbal Nu\u00f1ez wrote, taking this concept to the extreme: \u201cPara ser r\u00edo, al r\u00edo le sobra el nombre (To be a river, a river has no need of a name).\u201d Language, or at least a general term, may be insufficient to capture all the nuances \u2014 known or unknown \u2014 yet at the same time, it shapes our view of the world and, in this case, of an incredibly complex field of research. We would need to add at least several qualifiers to \u201caging\u201d to know exactly what we mean at any given moment. At the end of their article, the Canadian authors double down on their argument, concluding that \u201cas the field moves toward potential anti-aging therapies, large numbers of human lives may depend on fully knowing what we are measuring and what the risks are of getting it wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

Collado, however, puts such anxiety in perspective. \u201cAlmost any general biological process is difficult to define, but we know that language is not an exact representation of the world. Right now, this does not pose a real obstacle to progress.\u201d In fact, he shifts the burden of responsibility; \u201cWhat we need now is new knowledge that will allow us to gradually reconfigure that language.\u201d<\/p>\n

More discrepancies<\/p>\n

The conclusions drawn from the first questions in the new study were actually somewhat misleading. Since they were open-ended questions, some responses simply emphasized one aspect over another, and could have been assigned to different groups despite essential overlaps. Many of the questions that followed, however, did not allow for such ambiguity. When asked when aging begins<\/a>, the most popular answer among nine response options was at age 20, which was chosen by just 22% of respondents. 18% said it begins in the third week after conception, 16.% at conception, and 13% even earlier, with the formation of specialized sex cells. Jov\u00e9 says that from a biogerontological perspective, there is no doubt that it begins at age 20-25. Collado acknowledges that the definitive answer is unknown and it is logical to disagree on the matter, as it is still being studied. When asked whether aging is a disease, there were almost as many affirmative as negative or neutral responses lacking a clear opinion. Both Collado and Jov\u00e9 categorically state that it is not.<\/p>\n

To measure aging, there are a number of approximate markers, some of which are known as molecular clocks. If a person quits smoking and their markers improve, does that mean they have become younger? There was no consensus among the five response options provided. The final query was whether it is necessary to reach a consensus on the definition of aging. Ironically, just over 50% said yes, with the rest answering no, or that they were unsure.<\/p>\n

In 2023, two of the study\u2019s authors wrote an article stating that consensus would be necessary to improve the field\u2019s credibility and to avoid leaving space for pseudoscientific treatments. But Collado distances himself from such a view, saying instead that, \u201cexaggerated reevaluation breeds mistrust and allows pseudoscience to take root.\u201d The debate is not far removed from the one that inspired several famous statements. According to Einstein, \u201cPhilosophical insight is \u2014 in my opinion \u2014 the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth.\u201d Feynman once said, \u201cThe philosophy of science is as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.\u201d For Collado, the truth is somewhat more moderate, that it \u201cis a positive thing to analyze and rethink these issues, but in this case it is not seriously hindering progress, and may indeed have negative consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n

Pills vs. life<\/p>\n

At least 10 kinds of known interventions have managed to lengthen the life of laboratory rats, as well as other animals. Some of the most widely discussed and studied of these have involved the use of pharmaceuticals like metformin and rapamycin, the use of senolytics that eliminate senescent cells, cell reprogramming using so-called Yamanaka factors, and methods like calorie restriction (simply eating less). However, as the authors of the study write, \u201cno effective treatment proved to slow down or reverse the aging process in humans.\u201d For Collado, who acknowledges that this is the case, \u201ccalorie restriction is perhaps the closest and most recognized, but there are well-founded hopes that have been placed on other methods.\u201d<\/p>\n

The article attributes this scarcity of findings, in part, to the field\u2019s lack of consensus. Collado disagrees. \u201cAging is a very complex problem that has only recently begun to be studied. In fact, until the late 1980s, it was considered something that was impossible to alter. However, in the last 10 to 20 years, many mechanisms and ways to act upon them have been discovered,\u201d he says. There are now up to 12 canonical mechanisms, according to a landmark article that counts among its co-authors Spanish researchers Carlos L\u00f3pez Ot\u00edn, Mar\u00eda Blasco and Manuel Serrano.<\/p>\n

For its part, the conference attended by the study\u2019s respondents was more scientific than purely clinical, and there was hardly any discussion of disease. More than half of the respondents were laboratory directors and postdoctoral researchers. Nearly a quarter were doctoral candidates, and 13% came from the private sector. At no point were healthy habits<\/a> mentioned, even though their effects in countering aging have been clearly demonstrated. Nor were social determinants discussed. \u201cIn these times, in which longevity is sometimes sold as a clouded promise, we cannot ignore the importance of health determinants at any stage of life,\u201d P\u00e9rez Castej\u00f3n notes. \u201cIt may be that zip code matters more than genetic code<\/a>, as our colleagues specializing in family and community care are well aware,\u201d he adds.<\/p>\n

Are such habits capable of \u201cextending life\u201d, or do they simply maximize that which is \u201callowed\u201d by nature? Is there a biological limit to our existence? \u201cThere is nothing in our DNA that specifies exactly how long we can live,\u201d says Collado. \u201cThe maximum recorded longevity is about 122 years. Given how these cases align, it seems that the theoretical maximum age<\/a> would be close to that,\u201d says Jov\u00e9.<\/p>\n

P\u00e9rez-Castej\u00f3n has no doubts as to one point, \u201cGeriatricians and gerontologists aren\u2019t anti-aging; we believe in aging well.\u201d Jov\u00e9 describes the goal as \u201cdying of old age, not of illness,\u201d the aim being to \u201cage better in a healthy way.\u201d In an era in which many billionaires seem obsessed with eternal life, writer Santiago Alba Rico has stated in these very pages, \u201cThe rich and powerful want to live forever; the poor want to live to see another day.\u201d <\/p>\n

Sign up for our weekly newsletter <\/a>to get more English-language news coverage from EL PA\u00cdS USA Edition <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"What exactly is aging? The question seems obvious, but perhaps it\u2019s not, given that the organizers of a…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":340346,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7],"tags":[275,85050,2061,111,139,69,147],"class_list":{"0":"post-340345","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-science","8":"tag-canada","9":"tag-csic","10":"tag-nature","11":"tag-new-zealand","12":"tag-newzealand","13":"tag-nz","14":"tag-science"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340345","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=340345"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/340345\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/340346"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=340345"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=340345"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=340345"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}