By Ilia Stambler

There is now an emerging international social advocacy movement dedicated to promotion of biomedical research and development to alleviate aging-related morbidity and improve healthy longevity for the elderly population. It is commonly referred to by the activists as the “longevity movement” or “longevity research and advocacy movement”. It is a “hybrid” between the aged rights advocacy and science advocacy, as it emphasizes the need to improve health care for the elderly around the world via enhanced medical scientific research around the world. The movement is only emerging, and is not yet strongly related to other forms of health care advocacy. But a stronger relation is hoped for. The movement is also not well organized or coordinated. Many groups are united by the idea of the need to improve healthy longevity thanks to increasing biomedical research in the field of aging and aging-related diseases. But the actions of each group and even of each individual activist in the movement are mostly independent and autonomous.[1] In practice, every activist group and even every individual activist, considers the possibilities at hand – and acts accordingly autonomously. The actions may include publications, meetings, social media promotions, support of particular research projects, also by fundraising, sometimes involving “crowd-funding” and “crowd-sourcing”. Some higher level advocacy initiatives were undertaken, such as the “Longevity Dividend” initiative (US, since around 2006),[2] the efforts to lobby for biomedical aging research in the US congress (2016),[3] the effort to emphasize the need to strengthen biomedical research of aging at the WHO Consultation on the Global Strategy and Action Plan on Aging and Health (GSAP) in October 2015,[4] or the advocacy for the “Law Proposal for the Establishment of the National Advisory Committee for the Promotion of Longevity and Quality of Life for the Elderly Population” in Israel (ongoing since July 2012).[5]

The main types of activities that are being organized by various groups mostly include:

1) Organizing live and online meetings and study groups, and 2) Writing and distributing advocacy and popular scientific texts – including in national languages (websites, articles, petitions, blog posts, flyers, media press releases, etc.). And the methods of their organization can be summarized as simple as the following: 1) An individual activist just thinks what he or she can organize personally in his/her area and invites friends among longevity activists to think what they can organize together, 2) The activists write and distribute texts and appeals.

The main message of these actions is also rather simple: “Increase support for biomedical research of aging to improve healthy longevity”. Yet it can be scaled to almost any dimensions, from a local meeting of friends to international campaigns. The main message implies the realization that biomedical interventions into degenerative aging processes can provide the best foundations for combating aging-related ill health and for attaining healthy longevity. Yet, not enough is known about these processes and their countermeasures to provide truly effective means of combat. Hence “More Research is Needed!” This simple realization and the wish to induce this realization in others, have proven to give enough motivation for longevity research activists to step up to participate in actions, study groups and campaigns. It should be noted that the vast majority of the groups and activities so far have been entirely voluntary.

Diverse materials have been included in discussion, distribution and promotion, that could be taken from ready made resources.[6] Among many other resources, the position paper by the International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD) on the “Critical need to promote research of aging and aging-related diseases to improve health and longevity of the elderly population” briefly describes the rationales, technologies and policies needed to promote this research. The position paper has been translated by activists and is now available in 12 languages: with full texts in 9 languages and partial translations in 3 more languages. It has served as a “universal advocacy paper” both for the grass roots discussions and promotions and for the outreach to officials in several countries.[7] Also some frequently asked questions and topics of discussion on longevity research promotion, regarding both scientific and social aspects, have been summarized.[8]

Even though the activities are mostly autonomous, several concerted international actions, dedicated to the promotion of biomedical and biological research of aging and longevity, have been undertaken by various groups of advocates. The method of organization was straightforward – personally contacting known longevity research activists and leaders and consulting with them about what events and promotions they could organize personally as a part of the joint international action toward specific dates. The importance of taking personal responsibility for the organization and personal contacts cannot be overestimated. Massive “calls to action” are virtually useless as compared to personal engagement!

Some of the concerted actions, involving longevity activists groups from several countries, included the “Future of Longevity” campaign around the “Future Day” on March 1, 2013[9] and the “Metchnikoff Day” – around May 15, 2015, in honor of the anniversary of the founder of gerontology – Elie Metchnikoff.[10] Yet, perhaps the most successful and wide-reaching was the so-called “International Longevity Day” campaign, which has been organized since 2013, around October 1 – the UN “International Day of Older Persons”.[11]

Perhaps unintentionally, “the day of older persons” may appear value-neutral and indifferent toward the “older persons,” while the “longevity day,” celebrating and aspiring to healthy longevity for all, may be more uplifting. Yet, as this is the officially recognized “UN International Day of Older Persons,” this has provided the longevity research activists a perfect opportunity, perhaps even a perfect “excuse,” to emphasize the importance of aging and longevity research for the development of effective health care for the elderly, in the wide public as well as among decision makers.

This campaign has a bit of a history. In 2013, events during or around that day – ranging from small meetings of friends to seminars and rather large conferences, alongside special publications, distributions of outreach materials (petitions and flyers) and media appearances – were held in over 30 countries, and in 2014 in over 20 countries.

In 2015, record participation was attained with meetings and promotions held in over 40 countries, with outreach materials (videos, newsletters, social media) reaching out to hundreds of thousands of people. Dozens of organizations participated in the campaign. The support ranged from small emerging local groups of activists to authoritative scientific societies and associations, including the endorsements and promotions at the sites of such global organizations as the International Federation on Ageing (IFA), International Association of Gerontology and Geriatrics (IAGG), Healthspan Campaign, International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD) and others.

In 2016, while keeping the “longevity day” concept as would be desirable to particular groups and activists, an additional emphasis was placed on organizing the longevity promotion events through the entire month of October in the framework of “The Longevity Month” – as usually the “longevity day” events spread through the entire month. Promoting various “commemorative months” to support particular advocacy issues has been a well established and effective practice, and a dedicated “month” could give people more flexibility and space to organize events and publications. The extent of the campaign in 2016 was less than in 2015, with events and promotions held in over 20 countries. This might have been at least partly due to the ebbs and flows of personal and communal enthusiasm and availability that should be always kept in consideration. Generally, the impact of any campaign ultimately depends on the strength of involvement of every individual activist, for every event and every publication of the campaign.

Despite their still rather limited extents, such campaigns may be considered as exercises for the longevity movement building. They provided a demonstration that massive grass roots actions for biomedical research of aging are possible. Yet, much remains to be aspired to even begin to think of approaching the level of public involvement and influence that has been achieved by the campaigns of other movements, such as the “green movement”, or other forms of health advocacy. Hopefully, the movement for healthy longevity through scientific research may gradually approach such levels. Hopefully also, this fledging movement will become a truly integral and involved part of the global health movement.

References

[1] “Groups,” Longevity for All, 2017, http://www.longevityforall.org/groups/;

“Network of anti-aging organizations,” Reddit Longevity, 2017, https://www.reddit.com/r/longevity/comments/5xl8dh/map_of_all_antiaging_organizations_i_could_find/.

[2] S. Jay Olshansky, Daniel Perry, Richard A. Miller, Robert N. Butler, “In Pursuit of the Longevity Dividend: What Should We Be Doing To Prepare for the Unprecedented Aging of Humanity?” The Scientist, 20(3), 28-36, March 1, 2006, http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23191/; Pursuing the Longevity Dividend. Scientific Goals for an Aging World, September 12, 2006, including a full list of the campaign signatories: http://www.longevityforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Longevity_Dividend_Signatories.pdf.)

[3]“Ask Congress to Fund the First FDA-Approved Drug Trial to Prevent Cancer and Other Diseases of Aging,” Global Healthspan Policy Institute, February 24, 2016, https://healthspanpolicy.org/metformin-campaign/; http://tame.healthspanpolicy.org/;

“The New Age of Aging,” Global Healthspan Policy Institute, March 2017, https://healthspanpolicy.org/the-new-age-of-aging/; http://www.longevityforall.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/The-new-age-of-aging.pdf .

[4] “WHO consultation on the Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health,” Longevity for All, October 22, 2015, http://www.longevityforall.org/who-consultation-on-the-global-strategy-and-action-plan-on-ageing-and-health/;

“ILA position with respect to WHO’s Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health,” International Longevity Alliance, October 23, 2015, http://longevityalliance.org/?q=ila-position-respect-who-s-global-strategy-and-action-plan-ageing-and-health.

[5] “Law Proposal for the Establishment of the National Advisory Committee for the Promotion of Longevity and Quality of Life for the Elderly Population,” Israeli Longevity Alliance, http://www.longevityisrael.org/longevity-bill.html;

Ilia Stambler, “Political struggle against the disease of aging,” IEET, July 17, 2012, https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/stambler201207171;

Ilia Stambler, “Longevity research program is established in Israel,” IEET, September 10, 2014,

https://ieet.org/index.php/IEET2/more/stambler20140910.

[6] “Resources,” Longevity for All, 2017, http://www.longevityforall.org/resources/.

[7] Kunlin Jin, James W. Simpkins, Xunming Ji, Miriam Leis, Ilia Stambler, “The critical need to promote research of aging and aging-related diseases to improve health and longevity of the elderly population,” Aging and Disease, 6, 1-5, 2015, http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2014.1210.

The text is available in full in Arabic, Chinese, English, German, Hebrew, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, and as a partial (summary) translation in Danish, Finnish, Swedish: http://www.longevityforall.org/the-critical-need-to-promote-research-of-aging-around-the-world/.

[8] “Frequently asked questions about life extension,” Longevity For All, 2017, http://www.longevityforall.org/faq-of-the-ethics-of-lifespan-and-healthspan-extension/.

[9] Ilia Stambler, “For the Future of Longevity – Celebrating longevity on the international ‘Future Day’ March 1, 2013,” International Longevity Alliance, http://longevityalliance.org/?q=future-longevity; http://www.longevityforall.org/future-day-march-1-2013-theme-longevity/.

[10] Ilia Stambler, “The 170th anniversary of Elie Metchnikoff – the founder of gerontology, May 15, 2015,” Longevity for All, http://www.longevityforall.org/170th-anniversary-of-elie-metchnikoff-the-founder-of-gerontology-may-15-2015/; http://hplusmagazine.com/2015/05/06/may-15-2015-170th-anniversary-of-elie-metchnikoff-the-founder-of-gerontology-an-opportunity-to-promote-aging-and-longevity-research/.

[11] Ilia Stambler, “International Longevity Day – October 1” (2013,  2014,  2015, 2016)
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/stambler20131029; http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/stambler20140110;

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/72013-promoting-longevity-research-on-october-1-%E2%80%93-the-international-day-of-older-persons/;

http://www.longevityforall.org/international-longevity-day-october-1-2015/;

http://www.longevityforall.org/longevity-day-and-longevity-month-october-2016.

Media for the International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD)

Website (upgraded): http://isoad.org/

See in particular:

Joining options

http://www.isoad.org/Data/List/Membership

Contribution options

http://www.isoad.org/Data/List/Donation

Partnerships

http://www.isoad.org/Data/List/Partners

Chapters

http://www.isoad.org/Data/List/Chapters

Resources

http://www.isoad.org/Data/List/Resources

Conferences

http://www.isoad.org/Data/List/Conference

Journal – “Aging and Disease”: http://www.aginganddisease.org/

Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/International-Society-on-Aging-and-Disease-ISOAD-763771300337299/

Linked-in Group: https://www.linkedin.com/groups/13504310

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ISOAD2018

Google page: https://plus.google.com/b/106572921808518609823/106572921808518609823?hl=en

Google group (mailing list): https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/isoad

Welcome to join and contribute to the development of the world’s largest and fastest growing international professional society on biology of aging and aging-related diseases!

The most frequently asked questions about life extension (or extended longevity, lifespan or healthspan extension) concern the possibilities of its accomplishment, potential changes in individual and social identity and meaning, ethical values, and the availability of resources due to expected life extension, as well as questions about some possible actions that should be undertaken to accomplish life extension. In the presentation below, you may find some materials that may help address some of these questions:

The Tasks of Longevity Promotion: Science, Ethics and Public Policy – Potential presentation topics on longevity research

Ilia Stambler, PhD

Originally published at: http://www.longevityhistory.com/all-articles/

The task of healthy life extension, or healthy longevity extension, dictates a broad variety of questions and tasks, relating to science and technology, individual and communal ethics, and finally public policy, especially health and research policy. Despite the wide variety, the related questions may be classified into 3 groups. The first group of questions concerns the feasibility of the accomplishment of life extension. Is it theoretically and technologically possible? What are our grounds for optimism? What are the means to ensure that the life extension will be healthy life extension? The second group concerns the desirability of the accomplishment of life extension for the individual and the society, provided it will become some day possible through scientific intervention. How will then life extension affect the perception of personhood? How will it affect the availability of resources for the population? Yet, the third and final group can be termed normative. What actions should we take? Assuming that life extension is scientifically possible and socially desirable, and that its implications are either demonstrably positive or, in case of a negative forecast, they are amenable – what practical implications should these determinations have for public policy, in particular health policy and research policy, in a democratic society? Should we pursue the goal of life extension? If yes, then how? How can we make it an individual and social priority? Given the rapid population aging and the increasing incidence and burden of age-related diseases, on the pessimistic side, and the rapid development of medical technologies, on the optimistic side, these become vital questions of social responsibility.

Download Presentation

LONGEVITY PROMOTION

Aging research meetings calendar

Gathered by John D. Furber

A Celebration Of The Oldest Person On Record: Calment’s Day

Since 2012, there has been a global initiative to institute March 1 as an international “Future Day” dedicated to envisioning and working for a better future. In 2013, it was proposed to make “Longevity” the special theme of that day in that year, and mark this theme by conducting meetings and study groups in different countries, dedicated to discussions of longevity, on that day. That first of its kind international action in support of longevity research was a success. People from over 20 countries organized events, ranging from meetings with a few like-minded friends to mini-conferences and seminars, through lobbying actions to online communications. This was just a first drill and further actions of this kind will take place in the future.  Such events can be a very positive and unifying force both for the local and international life-extensionist communities and organizations, and ultimately for the social acceptance of our cause. Notably, the celebrations of the Future Day were not (and could not) be restricted just to the topic of longevity, and many organizations were involved and organized events, including International Longevity Alliance (ILA), Humanity+, Heales, LongeCity, various national transhumanist and life-extensionist associations, such as British Longevity Society, the Russian Transhumanist Movement, the Brazilian Transhumanist Association, the Mormon Transhumanist Association, and many more – with members often belonging to several allied organizations at one at the same time. Below I list all the events celebrated on that day that I am aware of, regardless of their “official” affiliation and emphasis. Yet, essentially, in all of these events, people expressed an optimistic and proactive attitude toward the future, in which the promotion of longevity is an indispensable component, moreover the promotion of longevity almost automatically brings in its train the advancement of other positive life-preserving and life-enhancing tasks: peace, science, education, quality of life, equality. It is to be hoped that all our joint efforts will contribute even minimally to their achievement.

Ilia Stambler – event coordinator.

And here are the reports from around the world (as were made back in 2013):

1. Russia. Maria Konovalenko and Daria Khaltourina report: We celebrated Future Day yesterday. Actually, even twice) Alexey Turchin, Peter Fedichev and Mikhail Batin discussed the possible future scenarios of our civilization at Expert Online round table. Life extension and its social implications were the main topics of this stimulation conversation. Later in the evening the Russian Transhumanist Movement celebrated Future Day under the sign of radical life increase. Valeria Pride, Danila Medvedev, Maria Konovalenko, Daria Khaltourina, Viktor Zykov, Elena Milova, Igor Kirilyuk, and others gathered together to celebrate and to share their plans in fighting aging for the following year.

 

 

In the picture, celebrations by the Russian Transhumanist Movement (left to right): Maria Konovalenko, Viktor Zykov, Igor Kirilyuk, Daria Khaltourina.

 

In the picture: Round Table at Expert TV, including: Alexey Turchin, Maria Konovalenko, Peter Fedichev, Mikhail Batin

2. Ukraine Elen Obabkova, Andrey Vergazov and Anton Kulaga report: An open conference was organized on the Future Day in Smart Cafe Bibliotech in Kiev, by Ukrainian Transhumanists. The program included presentations by Alexander Koliada “On the way to personalized medicine,” Vania Pasechnik “Hacker space – the community of the future” Evgeny Sluzko “Venus project – future without politics, poverty and war”, Anton Rzhevsky “Ecology and technology: How do we influence the Future”.

 

 

In the picture, the future day organizers and presenters: Elen Obabkova, Anton Kulaga, Evgeny Sluzko,  Andrey Vergazov, Alexander Koliada, Anton Rzhevsky, Vania Pasechnik

 

In the picture: the attendees of the Kiev Celebration of the Future Day.

3. Venezuela: Greetings and mutual support were kindly and generously shared among different countries during this day. Thus the Ukrainian event was greeted by Jose Cordeiro – President of the Venezuela branch of the “Millenium Project”, professor at the Singularity University, and an active promoter of radical life extension in South America and around the world. Here’s the video greeting. On March 1, Jose was preparing a documentary about Radical Life Extension for the History Channel.

4. Republic of Georgia, Jaba Tkemaladze reports: On March 1, students and professors of the International Black Sea University interested in Transhumanism, as well as students of Grigol Robakidze University, Tbilisi, gathered at the conference hall of Grigol Robakidze University to celebrate Future Day. Ministers of health and of education were invited, but did not attend. The newspaper “Asaval – Dasavali” interviewed the organizer, Dr. Jaba Tkemaladze. After the meeting at Grigol Robakidze University, an additional meeting took place at the Club of Young Scientists with the representative of Shota Iamanidze Foundation – Irina Iamanidze, and editor of the cultural-philosophical journal “Homli” Nino Sadgobelashvili. There was reached an agreement to cooperate. Technical details of the cooperation were considered. There emerged the idea to create an educational internet portal for those who wish to live in the future-oriented civilization, and are even now ready to change their habits of life.

 

In the picture: Dr. Jaba Tkemaladze conducts a Seminar on the Future Day at Grigol Robakidze University, Georgia.

5. UK. Dr. Marios Kyriazis reports: The activities in the UK went very well. We concentrated mostly on targeted political information, specifically: – We contacted members of the UK Parliament with information about longevity, life extension and the need for dialogue and funding. – We discussed issues of longevity and politics at a meeting with senior members of age-related organisations in the UK, and planned a way forward. For example, we planned a major meeting at the House of Lords in 29th October 2013. For the 1st October we will be organising meetings in Cyprus as we will be there for some weeks.

6. Israel. Ilia Stambler (myself) reports: On March 1, Future Day dedicated to the pursuit of longevity, a seminar was held in Bar Ilan University. The program included a lecture on the “Past and present of life extension”, a report about activities of the “International Longevity Alliance”, and then a brainstorming session on the ways Israeli pro-longevity activists can make a practical impact. Several long time veterans in the fight for healthy longevity were present: Dr. Yaakov Ben-Shaul, Dr. Rafael Marilus, Dr. Amit Fliess, Dr. Tal Galili, Dr. Eli Eshed, as well as participants from all walks of life – students, soldiers, workers. Some of the potential actions may include cooperation in collecting and processing data related to aging, social promotion of preventive medicine, and creating study groups.

 

In the picture: Bar Ilan University, Israel, the venue of the Future Day seminar. In the heat of discussion, i forgot to take pictures of the meeting. So here is a picture of Bar Ilan university, that people believe i was there (not perfect). The picture goes to all those who did not take or did not send pictures…

7. France. Edouard Debonneuil reports

I held a meeting in Café el Sur in Paris. It was a nice first try, there were good friends of mine as well as people I had not met yet. The discussion was great and covered a wide range of topics, with a particular focus on associations (ILA, Heales, Longévité & Santé, Sceaux Longévité Santé, Association Française Technoprogressiste), projects (Quantified Health and incitative pedometers, Linking Researchers, next conferences in France, an ongoing thesis), PR (longevity & health, aging as the root of most diseases today), organizational structures (fonds de dotation lié à une association reconnue d’intérêt général), health data collection and law (CNIL, données minimales requises et possibilité de travailler avec des des données non personnalisées), promises of ongoing research (in worms, in mice, NBIC) and how society gradually integrates longevity increases.

 

 

In the picture: Dinner on Future Day at Café el Sur. Paris. (Edouard – second from right)

8. Japan. John Leonard reports: The Longevity Alliance Japan had our first meeting on March 1st (Future Day) 2013 in Akihabara, Tokyo. Our group was small but I think it was a very big step! Meeting with each other in person created inspiration and motivation to really pursue longevity causes. And Miriam Ji Sun (Miriam Leis) adds: Mainly we discussed our interest in future-oriented topics (incl. robotics, biostasis research, biotech, regenerative medicine and longevity research) and how we came to got to know about them. It turned out that we all have similar networks in common. Some next steps would focus on growing our network in Japan.

 

In the picture (left to right): Miriam Ji Sun, Erico Narita, John Leonard

9. USA. Utah. Lincoln Cannon reports: The Mormon Transhumanist Association sponsored a Future Day lunch at Thanksgiving Point in Utah. All enjoyed casual conversation on such subjects as news of brain-to-brain interfacing between mice, comparisons of libertarian socialism and benevolent authoritarianism, and release of a new edition of Mormon scriptures by the LDS Church. A particularly passionate debate arose around the topic of maintaining identity during radical longevity or shared consciousness. We look forward to continuing these and related conversations at the 2013 Conference of the Mormon Transhumanist Association on 5 April in Salt Lake City. In the US, further meetings on Future Day (as far as I am aware) took place at Stanford University, California, and San Jose, California.

10. Portugal. Vanderlei Martinianos reports: A meeting was held at Café A Brasileira in the heart of Lisbon, and after gathering everybody, the participants headed to have dinner at Fabulas Restaurant. At Fabulas the participants celebrated the day as well as discussed about “The Evolution: The Future”, a novel written by Marco Santini (Foreword by Vanderlei Martinianos)  that was freely distributed. Mind uploading and longevity were also discussed.

 

 

According to Vandelei Martinianos: This is a picture related to the Future Day’s celebration in Lisbon. Note that I have created the F sign made with hands to recall the word F as in FUTURE. So I asked everybody to do it in order to celebrate the day.

11. Brazil.    Vandelei Martinianos together with Leo H.M. Arruda, Isabel Alves and Gustavo Rosa Diego Caleiro and João Lourenço coordinated two meetings that were held on Future Day in Rio De Janeiro and São Paulo. A third meeting took place on that day in Brazil in Santa Maria (in the Southern part of the country): Mateus Stein reports about the meeting in Santa Maria: We had a great conversation about longevity, transhumanism, emerging technologies and our expectations about the future for almost three hours. It was worth it to have had this meeting because of our conversation and friendship, but I’m still disappointed because it would be better if more people could be with us.

12. Belgium. Didier Coeurnelle reports: A meeting was held in Brussels, on 1st of March, in the Café ‘A la mort subite’. We had an interesting conversation during two hours among other things about · The most important progresses that we expect/hope to see concerning longevity in the next decades · The biggest risks related to (opposition to) life extension technological progression that we are afraid to see in the next decades

13. Canada, Edmonton. According to Kim Solez: University of Alberta Campus featured music by Joel Crichton, two student presentations by Damon Monroe – Plight of Globalization of Technology, Vanessa Rogers – From Sense to Intelligence: Enhancement of the Human Mind.; Excerpts from Doug Wolens The Singularity documentary with some fun interruptions, Three more student presentations, by Matt Herman – The Future of Freedom and Security. Peter Wood – Echocardiography: The Future of Cardiac Imaging. Diane Laverty – Genomics: Letting the Gen(i)e out of the Bottle. More Joel Crichton music, dancing and merriment!

14. Australia. According to Adam Ford, Future Day was held in Melbourne as a joint project of Amplify, Second Tree, Humanity+ and Singularity Summit AU. The program included: Welcome by Adam Ford, Director Humanity+, and presentations by Peter Ellyard on “Rapid prototyping the Future” (extremely participatory), a presentation, by Mark Ciotola (formely at NASA) on“The Future of Space Exploration”, and by James Newton-Thomas (Engineer, Field Roboticist) on “Automation, and The Future of Work.”

15. China Special thanks to Adam Ford for providing this interview with Dr. Ben Goertzel (currently researching AI in Hong Kong, China) — the man who originated the idea of the Future Day. And now Ben joined in the celebration of Longevity on that day. Watch the video of Ben Goertzel on Longevity

16. India. According to Siddartha S. Verma

A meeting was held in Ranchi, Jharkhand, India. Attention and awareness to this day will let the younger generation to understand the hidden potential behind emerging technologies and rapid technological acceleration.

17. South Africa. According to Belinda Metlitsky Silbert

“Since 2012, there has been a global initiative to institute March 1 as an international “Future Day” dedicated to envisioning and working for a better future.” In honor of that day, Belinda Metlitzky Silbert  gave a free talk on Healthy Longevity at Marina Da Gama, SA. 18. Finland.  The future day was celebrated in Tampere, Finland, by Longevity Finland.

19. Romania. According to Mihai Cirimpei

A meeting in support of longevity was held in Bucharest at the CUGET research group. 

20. Korea. Dr. Kyung-Jin Min delivered a lecture on aging research at the retreat of Incheon Central Church.

 

In the picture: Prof. Kyung-Jin Min with a group of students at the spring camp of Incheon Central Church.

21. The Netherlands. On March 1, Amanda Stoel organized “Health and Longevity Day” for a narrow circle in Bussum, near Amsterdam.

22. Italy. David de Biasi reports (according to Massimiliano Maidano): We met at the Galleria Alberto Sordi (A gallery dedicated to a famous Italian Actor ) in Rome. We talked about cryonics, politics and technology for a couple of hours.

23. Germany. Daniel Wuttke organized the submission of two proposals for longevity research to develop the Denigma (Deciphering the Enigma of Aging) platform (http://www.denigma.de/): “Quantified Self Intelligent Collective Platform For More Healthy Life Years” as a Commitment to the Action Plan of the European Innovation Partnership on Active and Healthy Ageing (EIP AHA) and another entitled “Crowdsourcing for the Biological Sciences: Open Distributed Science for Ageing Research”.

In several more countries there were efforts to organize events dedicated to longevity on the Future Day: Egypt, Mexico, Poland, Denmark, Ireland, Uganda, Philippines.  Yet, it was still difficult to gather the initial support. This is not at all discouraging, for the mere fact that such efforts take place is the best hope for the international movement for healthy longevity for all.

Looking forward to more and even stronger initiatives of this kind!

The 21st Century Cures Act

Summary:

The 21st Century Cures Act (House Resolution 6) is a bi-partisan proposal  introduced by US Congressman Fred Upton (R-MI) and introduced May 19 2015 and assigned to the House Energy and Commerce Committee chaired by Rep. Upton. Representative Diana DeGette as cosponsor and 230 cosponsors, received a favorable vote of 344 – 77 in the House and on July 13, 2015 was sent to the Senate Committee on Health, Labor and Pensions. It has been called a “breakthrough” in bi-partisan politics by none other than former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and is designed to streamline medical interventions for cures.

 

What Can Be Done Generally:

Provide bi-weekly updates tracking progress of bill through Senate and Executive Office

 

Support recognition of degenerative aging processes as a medical condition, and as the major underlying factor of all aging-related diseases and conditions (incl. cancer, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disease, pulmonary obstructive disease, type 2 diabetes, frailty) hence subject to diagnosis, development and application of “cures” and therefore an indispensable part of the Act, entitled to participate in all its programs.

 

Use it as a rallying call to enlist top researches of aging (from Buck Institute, Barshop Institute, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Rochester University, University of North Texas Health Science Center, etc. etc) to support our coalition.

 

Key Point A

The 21st Century Cures Act would establish in the U.S. Treasury an NIH and Cures Innovation Fund endowed with $1.86 billion in mandatory funds per year for FY2016 through FY2020 to be disbursed across the following initiatives: biomedical research, cures development, an accelerating advancement program, high-risk high-payoff research, and special funding support for early career researchers. The fund offers encouragement to researchers seeking assurance that lack of money will not represent a prominent roadblock to advancement of their lines of inquiry.

 

What Can Be Done Specifically:

Connect researchers and fellows to appropriate contact persons overseeing CI Fund.

 

Support dedication of funds to translational aging research within the Cures Innovation Fund.

 

Key Point B

The 21st Century Cures Act authorizes annual increases in NIH’s overall budget from $3.1 billion in 2016 to $3.4 billion by 2018, while directing the agency to target resources, through a “strategic plan,” which it is directed to develop to broaden its mission beyond its stronghold in crucial biomedical research and identify contributions to improving U.S. public health through biomedical research.

 

What Can Be Done Specifically:

Learn how it may be possible to become a part of strategic plan, or how one of the fellows and allies could.

 

Include fundamental and translational research of aging into the “strategic plan” of the NIH.

 

Key Point C

It accepts alternatives to multiphase clinical trials in certain circumstances, and permits accelerated approval pathways for certain classes of drugs such as novel antibiotics. Under the new criteria the agency may consider not only randomized clinical trial data, but also, observational studies, registries and therapeutic use as evidence of efficacy for drug and device approvals.

 

What Can Be Done Specifically:

Create brief to distribute to fellows, allies and labs, to enlighten on new opportunities for bringing their work to market.

 

Support inclusion of trials specifically directed for diagnosis and treatment of degenerative aging processes, as underlying causes of aging-related diseases.

 

Support increased transparency and reproducibility of studies as additional proofs of efficacy and thus additional indications for accelerated approval.

 

Support complementary modes of evidence (e.g. comprehensive in silico modeling or integrative models relating different levels of biological complexity) as additional proofs of efficacy and thus additional indications for accelerated approval.

 

Support international collaboration in the development and distribution of cures against aging-related ill health.

 

Key Point D

Over 250 organizations sent a letter of support to Congress.

 

What Can Be Done Specifically:

Contact the person who organized the sign-ons to that letter (or coalition/alliance org) and ask to sign on, and to connect to their contacts OR just go about forming strategic, PR-based partnerships with the biggest organizations listed.

 

In negotiations with the partners in the Act support coalition, urge them to recognize the importance of degenerative aging processes as the main underlying risk factor and often direct cause of all aging-related non-communicable diseases, and as a strong aggravating factor in communicable infectious diseases – and therefore in need of urgent inclusion into the Act.

 

References:

http://managedhealthcareexecutive.modernmedicine.com/managed-healthcare-executive/news/21st-century-cures-act-five-things-know?page=0,3

The critical need to promote research of aging and aging-related diseases to improve health and longevity of the elderly population. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4306469/

 

Provided by Global Healthspan Policy Institute

 

Degenerative Aging as a Medical Condition

By Ilia Stambler, PhD

Summary of issue: There has been recently an intensifying discussion among longevity researchers and advocates about the inclusion of the Degenerative Aging Process as a recognized and treatable medical condition, that would include the systemic factors that contribute to diseases and frailty.

The underlying, apparently plausible rationale for this suggestion is that the recognition of degenerative aging as a treatable medical condition would enable the existing legal frameworks to better tackle diseases and conditions that arise from the aging process from a preventative healthcare model. In particular, pharmaceutical, biomedical and wellness industry could then develop for market quickly new and existing preventative medications, biomedical technologies and regimens, that would decrease long-term healthcare costs. Moreover, such a recognition would open up new public funding for new pharmaceutical and biomedical research and development

What can be done generally:

Degenerative aging needs to be recognized as a diagnosable and treatable medical condition, starting with the appropriate WHO frameworks, setting the global standards for disease definitions. Yet, the methods of achieving this recognition with the WHO framework may vary.

This issue must become a subject of massive and pluralistic consultation of scientists and other stakeholders. An initial deliverable could be a collection of papers and expert opinions dedicated to the subject. With this evidential and expert basis and publication, it may be expedient to develop more precise policy recommendations and approaches for further consultation with the relevant WHO departments and affiliates, such as the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) program, the WHO Multi-Country Studies Unit, the WHO Collaborating Centre on International Longitudinal Studies of Gender, Ageing and Health, the developers of the ICD and ICF, WHO Department of Aging and Lifecourse, in particular the GSAP, WHO Program on Non-communicable Diseases and their Risk Factors, UN NGO Committee on Aging, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs – Division for Social Policy and Development, implementation agencies of the UN Sustained Development Goals (esp. SDG3 on healthcare)  and other relevant authorities.

http://www.who.int/entity/en/

 

 

Recognizing Degenerative Aging as a Treatable Medical Condition

 

Ilia Stambler, PhD

 

There has been recently an intensifying discussion among longevity researchers and advocates about the inclusion of the Degenerative Aging Process as a recognized and treatable medical condition, that would include the systemic factors that contribute to diseases and frailty.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2015.00205/full

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fgene.2015.00202/full

The underlying, apparently plausible rationale for this suggestion is that the recognition of degenerative aging as a treatable medical condition would enable the existing legal frameworks to better tackle diseases and conditions that arise from the aging process from a preventative healthcare model. In particular, pharmaceutical, biomedical and wellness industry could then develop for market quickly new and existing preventative medications, biomedical technologies and regimens, that would decrease long-term healthcare costs. Moreover, such a recognition would open up new public funding for new pharmaceutical and biomedical research and development. However, how do we achieve this recognition within the existing legal frameworks? And, more importantly, how do we translate this formal recognition into implementation, into establishing new research, development and healthcare programs at the international, national and institutional levels? And even more importantly, how do we translate these programs into actual biomedical treatments and cures, effective, safe and accessible for the widest public possible?

All these issues must become a subject of massive and pluralistic consultation of scientists and other stakeholders. An initial deliverable could be a collection of papers and expert opinions dedicated to the subject. With this evidential and expert basis, it may be expedient to develop more precise policy recommendations and approaches for further consultation with the relevant WHO departments and affiliates, such as the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) program, the WHO Multi-Country Studies Unit, the WHO Collaborating Centre on International Longitudinal Studies of Gender, Ageing and Health, the developers of the ICD and ISF, WHO Department of Aging and Lifecourse, in particular the GSAP, WHO Program on Non-communicable Diseases and their Risk Factors, UN NGO Committee on Aging, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs – Division for Social Policy and Development, implementation agencies of the UN Sustained Development Goals (esp. SDG3 on healthcare)  and other relevant authorities.

http://www.who.int/entity/en/

 

 

 

The next world conference of the International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD) will take place in Stanford, California, on October 1-2, 2016. The conference will gather world leading experts in biology of aging and aging related diseases, and will showcase the global advances in the field. The topics will range from interventions for longevity through stem cell research, genetics and systems biology of aging, to public support for aging research. The submission of abstracts and proposals is welcome.

The International Society on Aging and Disease is a leading association of researchers of the biology of aging and aging-related diseases, including hundreds of experts from around the world, with representations in over 20 countries . The previous international conference on aging and disease of the ISOAD in Beijing in 2014 gathered leaders in the field and provided a unique platform for the science of aging http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2015.0115 as well as for aging research advocacy http://www.aginganddisease.org/EN/10.14336/AD.2014.1210 . The forthcoming conference in Stanford in October 2016 will further contribute to fostering communication among researchers and practitioners working in a wide variety of scientific areas with a common interest in fighting aging and age-related disease. For more information, please go here.

Ilia Stambler, PhD. Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD).

www.isoad.org

Currently there takes place the World Health Organization’s consultation on the Global Strategy and Action Plan on Ageing and Health (until October 30). This is an opportunity to emphasize the importance of biological and biomedical research of aging for the development of effective health care for older persons.

Here is the participation page: http://www.who.int/ageing/consultation/en/

It is possible to download the full questionnaire as a Word file and send to HealthyAgeing@who.int Or there is a choice to relate to several or one strategic objective out of the five, for example “Strategic Objective 5: Improving measuring, monitoring and understanding” [of healthy aging]

http://www.who.int/ageing/consultation-strategic-objective5/en/

There may be several quite encouraging elements in the existing draft of the Action Plan, that can be interpreted for the advantage of longevity research. It is just necessary to infuse and emphasize a more biomedical/biological interpretation, as the text allows for different kinds of interpretation.

The Action plan draft is available here: “WHO DRAFT 0: GLOBAL STRATEGY AND ACTION PLAN ON AGEING AND HEALTH”. And it does include what may be interpreted as a strategic objective for biomedical aging research!

http://www.who.int/ageing/global-strategy/GSAP-ageing-health-draft.pdf?ua=1

http://www.who.int/ageing/global-strategy/en/

For example, the Strategic Objective 5: “Improving measuring, monitoring and understanding”, includes Action 1 – “Agreeing on metrics, measures and analytical approaches for Healthy Ageing”. It proposes:

– “developing and reaching consensus on metrics, measurement strategies, instruments, tests and biomarkers for key concepts related to healthy ageing including functional ability, intrinsic capacity, subjective well-being, health characteristics, personal and environmental characteristics, genetic inheritance, multimorbidity and the need for care”

– “reaching consensus on approaches for the assessment and interpretation of trajectories of these metrics and measures over the life course. It will be important to demonstrate how the information generated serves as inputs to policy, monitoring, evaluation, clinical or public health decisions, and their link to the need for health and long-term care and broader environmental change”

AND

– “developing and applying improved approaches for the testing of clinical interventions and population based approaches that take account of the different physiology of older people and multimorbidity” [!]

The Action Plan also includes actions for:

• “developing evidence informed national Healthy Ageing strategies or plans that are part of overall national plans through a process that involves all stakeholders” (“Strategic Objective 1: Fostering healthy ageing in every country” Action 1)

AND

• “including core geriatric and gerontological competencies in all health curriculums” (Strategic Objective 2: Aligning health systems to the needs of the older populations. Action 3).

All these objectives and actions can be interpreted to support biomedical research of aging *if* emphasizing the correct biological/biomedical aspects. For example “national healthy aging strategies” must be understood to include biomedical research. And “gerontological competencies” should also be understood as including biogerontology. Otherwise the biological and biomedical interpretation of these objectives can be overwhelmed by conventional social, psychological, assistive technological or lifestyle approaches. The latter approaches are important, but need not exclude the biomedical therapeutic approaches. Still, the basis for a biomedical interpretation exists in these documents, but needs to be emphasized and made more explicit.

For example, to the question of the consultation:

“For Strategic Objective 5, do you think another first-level priority action should be added to this list?”

It may be suggested to add a fourth action: “4) Elucidating basic mechanisms and processes of aging, their relation to disease, and mechanisms of their amelioration for the development of therapies to achieve healthy longevity.”

And to the question for Objective 5 “Do you think another measure of progress could be useful?” it may be suggested to add the measure: “Consensus occurs on metrics, measurement strategies, instruments, tests and biomarkers for the formal, biological and clinical, definition of aging and for the effectiveness of interventions and therapies against aging-related ill health”.

These kinds of biological/biomedical interpretations need to be emphasized both now at the stage of consultation and at the later stages of implementation!

There are also some encouraging elements in the recently issued “World Report on Aging and Health” (October 1, 2015)

http://www.who.int/ageing/events/world-report-2015-launch/en/

http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/186463/1/9789240694811_eng.pdf?ua=1

For example the report includes a section entitled “Reframing medical research” (pp. 113-114). It has such pro-biomedical-research statements as:

“Much medical research is focused on disease. This prevents a better understanding of the subtle changes in intrinsic function that occur both before and after the onset of disease and the factors that influence these changes…. Specifically, more research is needed that looks at how commonly prescribed medications affect people with multimorbidity, which is a departure from the typical default assumption that the optimal treatment of someone with more than one health issue is to add together different interventions. And outcomes need to be considered not only in terms of disease markers but also in terms of intrinsic capacity.”

Furthermore, the report states: “This will require the reallocation of budgets, which are currently relatively small in ageing-related research” and quotes Fontana et al. article in Nature (2014) “Medical research: Treat ageing” in support of that statement! (http://www.nature.com/news/medical-research-treat-ageing-1.15585)

Still, the biological and therapeutic interpretation of medical research of aging will need to be emphasized, or there is again the risk it will be pushed to the corner or even suppressed by non-biological and non-therapeutic approaches.

For example that “intrinsic function” or “intrinsic capacity” that the report wishes to improve is very vaguely defined as “the composite of all the physical and mental capacities that an individual can draw on”. This can be given to all kinds of functionalist, mentalist or even downright non-rigorous and unscientific interpretations. But it can also be given more scientific content based on biomarkers of aging and formal clinical definitions of aging. This scientific content may need to be stronger emphasized in the consultation and in the later stages of the action plan’s implementation.

There is also the simultaneously present, but apparently little related to the aging action plan – “International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)” which seems to hardly even mention aging or the “intrinsic function” in aging.

http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/

The ICF hypothesizes that “it is possible to see if people with similar levels of difficulty are receiving similar levels of support services irrespective of age such as when there are separate systems for aged or younger individuals with disabilities” (ICF Manual, p. 78). But the evaluation of aging-related disability is lacking.

The addition of a scientifically grounded biomedical classification of aging-related disability and function may greatly increase the utility of the ICF (currently feedback is requested by WHO on “A Practical Manual for using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)”

http://www.who.int/classifications/drafticfpracticalmanual2.pdf?ua=1

This addition to the ICF may be parallel to an addition of some clinically applicable, practical definition or classification of aging or senility within The International Classification of Diseases (ICD). The addition of aging to the ICF as an impairment of biological function may be actually easier than outright defining aging as a disease.

(See on senility as a part of ICD http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/R00-R99/R50-R69/R54-/R54 Consider also that senility is currently considered a “garbage code” in the ICD http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612617280 )

Most importantly, all these texts and their interpretations may remain on paper, unless they are backed up by some actual local involvement, both at the grass roots and professional level, at the stage of implementation. It is very unclear to me personally how this implementation could work at the level of countries and institutions. But apparently it is at that “lower” level where the real action will need to happen. And the WHO seems to acknowledge this. As the global strategy and action plan (GSAP) draft states (p. 22):

“Contributions aligned to the GSAP from countries, non-state actors including older adults, civil society organizations, multilateral agencies, development partners and those who develop, manufacture and distribute aids, equipment or pharmaceuticals to improve intrinsic capacity or functional ability, can transform the action plan from a document to a movement.”

So, in a sense, the implementation and interpretation of whatever is written in those documents will largely depend on “us”, on the individual and organizational involvements. If the longevity advocates are vocal, active and influential, the WHO authorities will need to “come to us” for the implementation of their plans..

PS. There is little doubt that, if active enough, the longevity advocates can emphasize the importance of biomedical research of aging. For example, watch this video on centenarians that was just released by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs – Division for Social Policy and Development ! The authors refer to this video as a “call to action” – there is a growing realization that achieving healthy longevity is possible. But it will still be the job of longevity advocates to emphasize that in order to actually make it possible and accessible to people we need the scientific “know-how”!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBP8ycObpbU&feature=youtu.be

Ilia Stambler, PhD. Outreach Coordinator. International Society on Aging and Disease (ISOAD)

www.isoad.org

ilia.stambler@gmail.com