I'm a big fan of stem cell technology and its future promise to do all kinds of pretty amazing things to fix up the human body.
However, at the same time, bionics is pretty freaking remarkable as well, and holds enormous potential for improving human life and treating certain injuries.
So I wonder which holds more promise: Bionics or stem cells? In the bionics vs stem cells biomedical battle, which wins say in 10 years from today?
Of course both may be instrumental or even synergistic, but for some conditions both technologies hold competing approaches.
When I was a kid I remember hearing about people having themselves frozen or even just their heads frozen shortly after death.
The idea was to cheat mortality by preserving oneself or critical parts of oneself until some future date when scientists and doctors would have learned how to thaw you out and save you.
At the time of diagnosis, hundreds of mutations already exist in leukemia cells but new research has found they are a part of normal aging and are not related to cancer.
Even in healthy people, stem cells in the blood routinely accumulate new mutations over the course of a person’s lifetime. In many cases only two or three additional genetic changes are required to transform a normal blood cell already dotted with mutations into acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
Is immortality really ideal? Is the confusion and befuddlement worth surviving the times and ages? Much like Mary Shelley’s monster that arose from the dead, would we be wretched, dejected, and distraught by the prospects of a future that we can’t even hope to fathom? Frankenstein’s monster is composed of the separate body parts found at a morgue, the monster has lived in a previous era and was spawned in Frankenstein’s time. His creation had once died but was reborn in the future.
Alzheimer’s Disease (AD)
is one of the most devastating illnesses that the human race has ever faced. It literally destroys the brain, which shrinks as a result over time (see image at left from Wikipedia).
The toll of AD is not only measured in hundreds of billions of dollars in health care costs and millions of deaths, but also in personal and family tragedy that comes with the severe loss of memory that accompanies it.
In western countries there are 20 times more people aged 65 years andr older than one hundred years ago. With those demographic changes have come changes in brain research. Understanding the mechanisms responsible for aging-related changes in cognitive processes, including spatial orientation, has become especially important for people’s everyday lives.
Aging is unavoidable - except perhaps for the brain, say researchers. They also present counterintuitive evidence that it is what you do in old age that matters when it comes to maintaining a youthful brain - not what you did earlier in life.
Education alone won't save your brain; PhDs are as likely as high school dropouts to experience memory loss with old age. Don't count on your job either - those with a complex or demanding career may enjoy a limited advantage, but those benefits quickly dwindle after retirement.
Instead, engagement is the secret to success. Those who are socially, mentally and physically stimulated reliably show greater cognitive performance with a brain that appears younger than its years.
Researchers have documented the first fossil-based evidence supporting an evolutionary theory of aging, which predicts that species evolving in low mortality and resource-limited ecosystems tend to be more long-lived.
But that is not an endorsement of banning guns and caloric restriction. It's a little more complicated than that.
Despite much research, the genetic causes why animals have such different longevities remain largely unknown, much because so many factors act on ageing that isolating the effect of a single gene is almost impossible.
But now, a study just published in the journal AGE might help to change that as researchers Pedro Magalhães and Yang Li from the Institute of Integrative Biology, at the UK University of Liverpool, unveil a new method that has already help them to identify several proteins involved in DNA-repair and in the recycling of abnormal molecules as being linked to longevity.
Illicit drug use is more common in older people than ever before - but that's because they did it the most when they were younger and they are more likely than ever to survive into old age.
New research published in Age and Ageing found that the lifetime use of cannabis, amphetamine, cocaine and LSD in 50-64 year olds has significantly increased since 1993 and is much higher than lifetime use in adults aged over 65. The study also found that drug use in inner London was higher than the overall UK average.
The study analyzed data on illicit drug use from two household surveys*. The most recent national survey included 2,009 people aged 65 and 1,827 people aged 55-65. The inner London survey included 284 and 176 people in these respective age groups