Biogerontology

, 7:279

Contentious terminology and complicated cartography of anti-aging medicine

OPINION

Abstract

Serving as an introduction to the cultural significance of the contemporary emergence of anti-aging medicine, this article outlines some of the distinctions and controversies regarding the usage of the term “anti-aging medicine.” By sketching out the complex field of researchers, practitioners, organizations, companies it is clear that “anti-aging medicine” is a highly contentious term that means different things to different groups. Thus, analysis demands a keen attention to contextualizing its usage. However, despite the critically important distinctions in how “anti-aging medicine” is used and what it connotes both to the user and the audience, the core principle of anti-aging is the notion that aging can be targeted for biomedical intervention. It is the orientation toward this explicit goal that marks anti-aging medicine. While neither advocating for/against anti-aging medicine nor excavating the large body of biological literature, this ethnographically researched article explicates the cultural use of “anti-aging medicine” and maps out its main varieties, controversies, stakes, and challenges.

Keywords

Aging Anti-aging medicine Anthropology/ethnography Scientific controversy 

Abbreviations

A4M

The American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine

SENS

Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

References

  1. American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine (2002) Official position statement on the truth about human aging intervention. Internet Document www.worldhealth.net/p/96,333.html (accessed June 2003)Google Scholar
  2. Arking R, Butler R, Chiko B, Fossel M, Gavrilov L, Morley JE, Olshansky SJ, Perls T, Walker R (2003) Anti-aging teleconference: what is anti-aging medicine? J Anti-Aging Med 6:91–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Austad S (1997) Why we age: what science is discovering about the body’s journey through life. J. Wiley and Sons, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Binstock R (2003) The war on “anti-aging medicine”: maintaining legitimacy. Gerontologist 43:4–14PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Binstock R (2004) Anti-aging medicine: the history: anti-aging medicine and research: a realm of conflict and profound societal implications. J Gerontol Biol Sci 59A:B523–B533Google Scholar
  6. Butler R (2001) Is there an ‘anti-aging’ medicine? Nonscientists seeking to attract consumers to untested remedies. Generations XXV(4):63–65Google Scholar
  7. Callahan D (1994) Manipulating human life: is there no end to it? In: Blank R, Bonnicksen A (eds) Medicine unbound: the human body and limits of intervention. Columbia University Press, New York, pp 118–131Google Scholar
  8. Chapman AR (2004) The social and justice implications of extending the human life span. In: Post S, Binstock R (eds) The fountain of youth: scientific, ethical and policy perspectives on a biomedical goal. Oxford University Press, Oxford England, pp 340–361Google Scholar
  9. Cole T, Thompson B (eds) (2001) Generations XXV(4)Google Scholar
  10. de Grey ADNJ (2004) The curious case of the catatonic biogerontologists. Longevity Meme internet document www.longevitymeme.org/articles/viewarticle.cfm?page=2& article_id=19 (accessed August 25, 2005)Google Scholar
  11. de Grey ADNJ (2005) Life extension, human rights, and the rational refinement of repugnance. J Med Ethics 31: 659–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. de Grey ADNJ (2006) Why we should do all we can to hasten the defeat of human aging. Internet document www.gen.cam.ac.uk/sens/concerns.htm#opop (accessed January 15, 2006)Google Scholar
  13. de Grey ADNJ, Baynes JW, Berd D, Heward CB, Pawelec G (2002a) Is human aging still mysterious enough to be left only to scientists? Bioessays 24:667–676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. de Grey ADNJ, Ames B, Anderson J, Bartke A, Campisi J, Heward CB, McCarter RJM, Stock G (2002b) Time to talks SENS: critiquing the immutability of human aging. In: Harman D (ed) Increasing healthy life span: conventional measures and slowing the innate aging process. The Ninth Congress of the International Association of Biomedical Gerontology, pp 959–962Google Scholar
  15. de Grey ADNJ, Gavrilov L, Olshansky SJ, Coles LS, Cutler RG, Fossel M, Harman SM (2002) Antiaging technology and pseudoscience. Science 296:656aCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. de Grey ADNJ, Sprott R (2004) SAGE WEBCAST: how soon until we control aging. November 05, 2003, Internet document www.sagecrossroads.comGoogle Scholar
  17. Fossel M (1996) Reversing human aging. William Morrow and Co. Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. Gavrilov L (2002) Scientific legitimacy of the term “anti-aging”. J Anti-Aging Med 5:129–150Google Scholar
  19. Gerontology Research Group (1991) Mission statement. Internet document www.grg.org (accessed March 17, 2004)Google Scholar
  20. Hackler C (2001) Troubling implications of doubling the human lifespan: the idea is old and new. Generations XXV(4):15–19Google Scholar
  21. Hayflick L (1994) How and why we age. Random House Inc., New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. Holliday R (1995) Understanding ageing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  23. Holstein M (2001) A feminist perspective on anti-aging medicine: ethical and practical implications. Generations XXV(4):38–43Google Scholar
  24. Journal of Gerontology Biological Sciences (2004) Anti-aging issue. 59A(6)Google Scholar
  25. Kirkwood T (1999) Time of our lives: the science of human aging. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Kurzweil R, Grossman T (2004) Fantastic voyage: live long enough to live forever. Rodale Inc., USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Le Bourg E (2000a), Gerontolotists and the media in a time of gerontological expansion. Biogerontology 1:89–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Le Bourg E (2000b) Gerontolotists and the media: false hopes and fantasies can be hazardous for science. Biogerontology 1:371–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller R (2002) Extending life: scientific prospects and political obstacles. Milbank Q 80:155–174CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Mykytyn CE (2006) Anti-aging medicine: a patient/practitioner movement to redefine aging. Soc Sci Med 62:643–653CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Nuland S (2005) Do you want to live forever? MIT Technology Review, Internet document www.technologyreview.com/articles/05/02/issue/feature_aging.asp (accessed March 3, 2005)Google Scholar
  32. Olshansky SJ, Hayflick L, Carnes BA (2002) No truth to the fountain of youth. Sci Am 286:92–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Olshansky SJ, Carnes BA (2001) The quest for immortality: science at the frontiers of aging. W.W. Norton and Company, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Pontin J (2005) July 28, The SENS challenge, technologyreview.com Internet document http://pontin.trblogs.com/archives/2005/07/the_sens_challe.html (accessed August 25, 2005)Google Scholar
  35. Post S (2004) Anti-aging medicine: the history: establishing an appropriate ethical framework: the moral conversation around the goal of prolongevity. J Gerontol Biol Sci 59A:B534–B539Google Scholar
  36. Post S, Binstock R (eds) (2004) The fountain of youth: scientific, ethical and policy perspectives on a biomedical goal. Oxford University Press, Oxford, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  37. President’s Council on Bioethics (2003) Beyond therapy: biotechnology and the pursuit of happiness—a report of the president’s council on bioethics. Dana Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  38. Raffaele J, Livesey R, Luddington A (2000) Anti-aging medicine: partners put evolutionary theory into practice. Geriatrics 55:37–46PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Rattan SIS, Clark BFC (2005) Understanding and modulating ageing. IUBMB Life 57:297–304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Singer P (1991) Research into aging: should it be guided by the interests of present individuals, future individuals, or the species? In: Ludwig F (ed) Life span extension: consequences and open questions. Springer Publishing Company, New York, pp 132–145Google Scholar
  41. Stock G, Callahan D (2004) Debates: point-counterpoint: would doubling the human life span be a net positive or negative for us either as individuals or as a society? J Gerontol Biol Sci 59A(6):B554–B559Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of AnthropologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaHighland ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations