Aging research is research aimed at slowing down the aging process or at repairing the damage caused by it. At present, comparatively few resources are spent on aging research, relative to the benefits that breakthroughs in this area could bring about. For example, in 2019 the National Institutes of Health spent less than two percent of its budget on aging.[1]
There is some disagreement concerning the best way to make progress on aging. Some researchers claim that progress depends crucially on improving our knowledge of the metabolic pathways involved in the aging process—this is the approach favored by most research institutions. An alternative approach seeks to find ways to periodically repair the cellular and molecular damage caused by aging, without necessarily understanding the aging process itself. The SENS Research Foundation, an organization explicitly set up with the aim of ultimately ending aging, has pioneered this alternative approach.[2]
Further reading
Barnett, Matthew (2020) Effects of anti-aging research on the long-term future, Effective Altruism Forum, February 27.
Beckstead, Nick (2017) Mechanisms of Aging, Open Philanthropy, September.
Related entries
- ^
National Institutes of Health (2020) Estimates of funding for various research, condition, and disease categories (RCDC), February 24.
- ^
De Grey, Aubrey & Michael Rae (2007) Ending Aging: The Rejuvenation Breakthroughs That Could Reverse Human Aging in Our Lifetime, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
May I ask for the reasoning for the title being “Aging research” as opposed to “Anti-aging research”?
I must assume it’s because the former is the name established in the academic literature? Or is it to maintain some kind of fact/value distinction?
Thanks in advance!
My impression was that, as you say, “Aging research” is the more established name for the field. Moreover, the general form we’ve been using for articles about research on specific areas is “[Area] research”. By contrast, “Anti-aging research” seems to emphasize the purpose of the research rather than the research area.
Could you elaborate on why you think “Anti-aging research” is preferable (if this is in fact what you think)?
I didn’t really have a preference to be honest! I was just curious and a little confused by the fact that some posts and one of the “further reading links” used the “anti-aging” terminology.
Thank you for point about the general format being “[Area] research”—that makes sense and will be useful to me for potential future wiki edits. Also thank you to the other comment for the “cancer research” analogy - that makes sense too.
Is it worth updating the style guide for the “[Area] research” convention or is it too niche and may add unnecessary bloat?
Good point. I weakly lean towards not updating it, since there are only a handful of articles that fit that template. But if you or others think this should be included, just let me know.
Thanks for your help and guidance. I agree that for now it’s not worth it!
I guess they think that the purpose of the research is to slow aging, and that the name should make that clear. (Cf the question: “Or is it to maintain some kind of fact/value distinction? )
But I would probably disagree with that rationale. E.g. even though the purpose of research on cancer is to prevent cancer, it’s called “cancer research”, not “anti-cancer research”. Analogously, I think that “aging research” is preferable to “anti-aging research”.