Predicting Our longevity
Can our telomeres tell us how long our natural lives will be? If so, at what point in our lives will they give the best estimate? These are some of the questions scientists are trying to answer with their animal studies. Through research, Professor Pat Monaghan says that telomere length can best predict our natural life span at a very young age. Let’s say this phenomenon was true in humans. In fifty years, do you think it could be a possibility that genetic testing could predict your life span? Do you think that if this kind of test was available, you would make your young child be tested? Why or why not? What kind of issues could this raise?
Think critically: when should the line be drawn on unnecessary genetic testing? If one of the goals of sequencing the genome was to provide better treatment in the clinical world, is our genetic knowledge and testing ability exceeding or going to exceed our clinical need?
Watch the video clip and read the associated article: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-16479649
I think it's possible that in 50 years we could have a genetic test for the length of our DNA telomeres. I'm not sure, however, if this test could really accurately predict the span of our lives. The researchers have only done one study on finches, and although these animals are somewhat similar to us, the human body and environment holds substantial differences that may render any connections useless. Finches have predators like snakes and hawks, where as we are at the top of the food chain and do not need to fight to live. However, humans have many more stressors that finches will never see (like getting into college, deciding what job to take, figuring out how many children you and your spouse would like to have, etc). So I don't think that 50 years is a long enough period of time to create an accurate test to determine our life spans. I do think that we probably will be able to measure our telomeres though and make possible predictions based on the bird studies.
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'd make my child get tested for this. To me it doesn't seem necessary. This isn't testing for a disease of any sort or a risk of developing something fatal. It's simply telling you how long you have to live, which can be a frightening fact to learn. I wouldn't want to put any of that pressure on my child. I would much prefer that they live a normal happy lie as is and not worry about what some test says. Also, the chances of the test being accurate are pretty small.
I think our genetic knowledge and testing ability will definitely exceed our clinical need. This type of test doesn't help provide better treatment, it just gives people more fear and uncertainty about their lives. I think that if people want to pay to get this type of telomere testing done, then that is their choice and they can certainly do so if they please. Some people may take the information and try to use it to their advantage in attempting to extend their lives through the environment when their genes dictate something else. This sort of result may be helpful in the clinical sense because people may choose to live healthier lives if their genes already say they are set to die sooner. I'm honestly not sure where the line should be drawn, but I'm sure we will continue to develop new tests and screening processes for a long time.
- Caroline Booth
I agree with Caroline's post: it seems plausible that in 50 years there could be a similar test for humans, measuring our potential longevity based on telomeres, or some other similar genetic marker, especially given the rapid increase in availability and affordability of current genetic tests. However, as mentioned in the video, humans are also much more complex than the sample finches. There are so many environmental as well as behavioral risk factors that would, in my opinion, significantly confound any potential results from such a study or test.
ReplyDeleteEven if these variables could be accounted or and an accurate longevity prediction could be made, I don't think that such a test would be practical, or even ethical. In the Liu et al. article discussing the potential hazards of DTC genetic testing, there are many potentially negative outcomes of genetic tests that give results which people cannot change (i.e. for diseases that have no cure). These same negative consequences could result from a longevity. If someone is told that their 5-year-old child will not live past 30, they may treat the child differently, or even subconsciously adopt a fatalistic attitude towards the child. Even if this did not happen, parents could not do anything to genetically enhance the longevity of their child; therefore, the test has no clinical utility.
While new advances in scientific ability and knowledge are exciting and even necessary, especially in the area of genetics, introduction and implementation on new tests should always be done cautiously. As Caroline mentioned, it's difficult to establish exactly where this line should be drawn, but it's definitely of central importance to the development of genetic testing. Most people, and even many healthcare providers, are not equipped with the necessary knowledge to fully understand and interpret the results from most of these tests and until this can be changed/improved, the future of genetic testing seems uncertain.
-Kaitlin Dicks
If in the future, a test is developed to determine our lifespan, the outcomes of the result could go both ways. I agree with Allison that some people will use it to live their lives to the fullest and complete goals they feel they will not have much time for. On the other hand, others may take it negatively using there early death as an excuse to not care about life or the way they live it.
ReplyDeleteEven though determining someone's lifespan based on genetics would be a big step for the technology/science community, I'm not sure how accurate it would be, based on external factors that can change someones length of life. For example someone who smokes and eats unhealthy has an increased chance of having a short lifespan. Once healthier lifestyle choices are made before it is too late, the lifespan becomes enlongated.
I suppose the test may give an estimate of your lifespan solely based on genes, excluding your lifestyle. From there, geneticist can then factor in the individuals lifestyle to determine if their choices are increasing or decreasing their base life span.
Personally, I would not want the added stress of knowing how long I had to live. Maybe if I was dying from terminal illness and the test could predict very accurately how much time I had left so that I could do things I've always wanted to. But then again, It shouldn't take the closeness of death for someone to do things they've always wanted to. We should try to live our lives as best we can no matter how much time we have left.
Elizabeth, you make some great points that I would like to touch upon. I believe that, first of all, testing someone's telomere's to see how long a person's lifespan is has ethical implications. First of all, I don't think that I would want to know how long I was going to live. If I found out that I only had another 5 years to live, my life would become a ticking clock that I would be stressed about, especially as it pertains to doing all the things that I would want before I die. In addition, if an employer or insurance company found out that you only had 5 years left to live, would they take you on as an employee/client? Would you have children? Would you eat poorly, not exercise, and perform risky behaviors because you know it would have no influence on your longevity.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of the actual science behind it, I think Elizabeth made a great point about "external factors" that play a role in an individual's longevity. This test could not be that accurate, because specific genes can be expressed or not depending on environment and life choices. There are more factors than just telomere length that play roles in how long a person will survive. If a person finds out that they will die at age 80, this might not be completely true, especially if a freak accident kills them beforehand or they change a lifestyle choice to increase their risk of cancer/heart disease/etc. or if they are exposed to environmental toxins/poverty-stricken conditions or poor healthcare treatment.
Finally, the last point I would like to make is about cost. This test must be very expensive, so only the rich could afford it. In addition, it would only give an estimate about how long a person would live. Is it really worth it? Would you really want the stress of knowing even an estimated age of your death? I would want to live my life to the fullest thinking that everyday is my last. As an individual, I am a lot happier not knowing that my life is passing me by either slowly or quickly. And even if you did live until you were 100, what would your quality of life be like at that time? Would you have any of the ones that you truly cared about around to see you live this long? Spouse? Parents? Probably not. Something to think about!
I agree with Dana on the fact that finding out about your life span could be VERY scary. I'm honestly not sure what I would do if I found out that I only had a year to live. Plus, the validity of these tests are not yet proven and what would happen (personally wise and legally wise) if after a year you were still living and the genetic company told you they made a mistake and that you're actually going to live for another 60 years? What would you have done in that year that you may now regret? (spent all of your savings, quit your job, married the first man you met, etc). Eeeek
Delete- Caroline Booth
I think that this type of information is not at all necessary and is very unethical. Knowing how long you will live would change your entire life and your approach to life. Not to mention the fact that there are many other risk factors such as car accidents that can change the time of death. The reporter in the video made the point that these finches do not smoke, drink or eat a poor diet, factors that will affect humans’ life span but not necessarily animals’. I do not think this information is at all beneficial unless at some point we are able to predict what sort of illness or disease you will die from. The only way this would be beneficial would be if you knew to get screened early for a certain kind of disease, which would then lead to early treatment and therefore extend your life expectancy.
ReplyDeleteI would not want my child’s telomeres to be tested because I would not want him or her knowing what age they will live to, and I would not want to know either. This would change the way that people treated them if anyone were to find out, and they would definitely face discrimination in employment and insurance if their telomere showed a short life span. I also think that if people knew they were going to live a longer life, they may not choose all of the healthiest lifestyle behaviors, thinking that they have good genes and are already going to live a long life. It could also be the same if you found out you were going to live a short life, you may participate in risky health behaviors if you know that you are going to die at a younger age. I think since we do not know how long we are going to live we all value our lives and our health that much more, and we are careful with our health choices because we want to extend our life expectancy as much as possible.
I think that our genetic knowledge and testing is growing in a positive way, but that it will soon exceed our clinical need. I am afraid that we will start gaining access to genetic information that is too much information and is not beneficial, but controversial and ethically harmful to us.
I definitely agree with Hannah... I am very against any idea involving knowing one's lifespan (except in extreme circumstances like a terminal illness). It is just not natural. And it would create complete hysteria and depression in someone's life. And if you think about it, if you were just informed that you were only going to live to 40 years old, perhaps you would get severely depressed or experience other harmful emotional effects that would proceed to FURTHER SHORTEN your lifespan. Stress is a huge influential factor on longevity of life... so discovering that you are not going to live long will only produce more stress and disappointment, thus shortening your life even more.
DeleteAs many others stated earlier, what if someone discovered that he/she were only to live up to 25 years old. They would make radical decisions in their lifetime-- perhaps even foregoing acquiring higher education so as to not waste their time in college. But then what if they test were inaccurate, and they lived until 45 years, but those 45 years were spent in difficult situations because the lack of education and employment based on their previous decision not to go to highschool or college? The "false positivity" of the telomere length test would have absolutely complicated and caused great harm to the person.
A "lifespan test" can change the way employers hire employees. What if all people were required to take the test to see how long they would live, and then employers began making rules that one must live until at least 65 to be able to work in their company. Imagine a world where the requirements to run for President included living until at least 75. Many American citizens would be excluded from the presidential race. One may see this as beneficial, for the insurance that a presidential candidate will be long-lived is significant, but our political and governmental system would be radically changed. Things would just not be natural anymore.
I'm not sure if in 50 years, we would be able to predict longevity of life. This seems a complicated idea (and not to mention an unethical one), so I'm not sure if 50 years is a sufficient amount of time. But regardless of how much time it takes, I do not believe that the human race is ready or will EVER be ready to use that kind of information to improve their lives. I can only predict danger, great harm, and panic.
I think the idea of being able to predict one's lifespan by measuring the length of one's telomeres is very interesting but far too simple. As was stated in the film, humans expose themselves to a wide variety of environmental factors such as tobacco, alcohol, pollution in the air, stress etc. These factors play an enormous role in our health so it is reasonable they play a role in our lifespan as well. Maybe in the future telomeres will be able to predict our approximate life expectancies but I don't think it will ever be possible for them to predict our life spans as accurately as the finches. Therefore, I don't think this method will ever be commonly used. That being said, I think it is absolutely amazing that these scientists were able to accurately predict the life expectancies of the finches.
ReplyDeleteIf a test like this were to be available I would not have my young children tested. I think it would be too stressful knowing your life expectancy. I would prefer not to know and be able to live each day how I want to live it and not worry about when I am going to die. I would want that same thing for my children.
I think that this type of genetic testing is crossing the line. I do believe that in 50 years this can be a plausible form of genetic testing but I hope that it is not and if it is that it is not made available to the public. As previously stated there are a number of factors that can contribute to an individual's lifespan. Diet, personal habits, and exercise are just a few, but what about freak accidents? No one know exactly how long they are going to live and determining the length of one's telomeres isn't going to answer that question for anyone. I personally would not want to know how long I was going to live and I wouldn't make my child be tested either. Knowing how long we are going to live especially at birth with no other sign of disease or health implications is not going to be beneficial to a person's life. I don't see how this form of testing will benefit the clinical world. Yeah, it could cause someone to live life to the fullest and do things that they hadn't before but as I stated freak accidents happen everyday so that should be reason enough to live life to the fullest.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do see the benefits of genetic test I do think a line should be drawn. If people could take a test to find out how long their lifespan would be wouldn’t this be problematic? This also does not take into consideration different areas of life such as diet and environment. While genetics is an advancing field this type of testing will create a world like the one depicted in the Hollywood film Gattaca. I hope in fifty years they are even more vital discoveries such as a HIV vaccine.
ReplyDeleteI would not make my child take this test. We live in a world were so much emphasis is placed on science in 50 years what will happen to faith and hope? I refuse to have my child tested for this because I have faith in other things outside of the realm of science.
This seems like a very unethical test, since a number would be assigned to a person's life. Someone's life should not be measured by the number of years they live, but rather by how they spend those years. That's where I think genetic testing plays a part, in how a person's years of life can be bettered. Genetic testing should be used to prevent, detect, and control diseases, so that someone with a disease can better the years of their life that they have, in hopes that they will live as long as possible. The focus of genetic testing should not be used to put a number on the years of their life.
ReplyDeleteI also think that the test could indirectly shorten someone's life. For example, if someone was tested and their telomere length showed that they would live to 100 years old, they might think that gives them the right to eat McDonalds every day, and they will think they will have immunity to live to 100. What people might not realize is that outside factors such as stress, environment, economic status, and diet can shorten someone's life, regardless of telomere length.
I also thank Allison brought up a good point about shortening someone's life. If you have a longer lifespan does that give you the opportunity to take more risks health wise because your genes are supposed to live for a long period of time? Even if you educate people that it's just a number people will take it to heart and live by it! What's one more doughnut…I still have 87 more years to live. And the opposite could happen too. If you have 30 years to live…does it matter that you drink everyday??
DeleteI agree that a genetic test can not accurately give us an estimate of how long we will live. Environment and upbringings play an extremely important role in how long we will live. Genetics solely are not the answer to this question, nor will there be an easy one. Today, there exists some blood tests that have correlated somewhat closely with longevity such as measuring HDLs and LDLs. Recent studies have shown that extremely high HDL cholesterols, meaning over 100 when normal is 40-60, are strongly associated with centarian living. This means that the HDLs clean out our bad cholesterols in the body and have shown to have lasting effects on the lifespan of human beings. This is not the typical case however, merely the exception of people with HDLs in that range. The extent to how high a person's HDLs are are likely hereditary and tests could be performed to see if this was passed in the genes down the family. For example, my great grandfather who was born in Italy, had HDLs of over 100 and in fact, lived to be 105, one of the oldest living people. I have had my blood tested with the results being that my HDLs are 113, about three times as high as normal, which could potentially mean I could live a longer life. I would find it beneficial to have a genetic test to see if my children would inherit the same trait, but not necessary. This kind of test would not take into account everything else that goes into play when dealing with the span of a person's life. I could potentially live to be over 100, but so many things in our diet today are destructive to our health that were not present when my great grandfather was growing up. Additionally, studies have come out recently that have stated that the new generation will likely live shorter lives than their parents, for the first time in history, due to the changes in our diets.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel that so many things in our diet contribute to our health, especially where you grew up. I read an article a couple of weeks ago that listed the top 10 populations that have the highest life expectancy, mainly due to their diets (Italy with their red wine and olive oil is number 10!): http://news.yahoo.com/top-10-hotspots-human-longevity-165841323.html
DeleteI agree with everyone on the idea that this test is unnecessary and unethical. Since this test would only be testing for your natural lifespan, not taking into account environmental factors, there would be nothing that you could do to change the information once you had it. We have deemed screening tests which test for a disease that has no cure unethical, so why shouldn't the same idea be applied to this genetic test? You can only control your own lifestyle factors, and since we already know about the risks and benefits of most activities and make decisions for our lives regardless of knowing how long they are, why factor in this knowledge? I feel like telling someone that they have a shorter lifespan than expected would cause them to participate in dangerous activities which they otherwise wouldn't have simply because of the pressure of not having enough time to truly "live".
ReplyDeleteAdditionally, as many have mentioned, the stress of knowing when you are supposedly going to die could unnecessarily shorten your life since stress is a risk factor for many problems/diseases. Stress could be especially problematic if the prediction turns out to be incorrect and you are left with time you didn't account for or have time unexpectedly cut short.
Needless to say, I would not have my children take this test.
I really don't see the purpose or benefit of this possibly becoming a genetic test. I don't think that this will help people live healthier lives because this test wouldn't even give information about how to do so. If I were to know how long my life would be, what will I get from this information? Will I change the way I plan my life? Will I behave differently? Will I become anxious about what's to come in the near future? Maybe or may not. But I do think that researchers need to focus on and put their energy towards is cancer and other chronic diseases and find cures and/or preventive measures for those issues that actually matter.
ReplyDeleteIn fifty years, I'm not sure if it could be a possibility that genetic testing could predict one's life span. But if this kind of test was available, I would NOT make my child be tested. Because regardless of telomere length, as Allison mentioned, there are other environmental and behavioral factors that contribute to one's life span. In addition, my child would be subject to being defined as a number and not how he/she lives his/her life.
As everyone has mentioned maybe at some point in the future, our telomeres will be able to tell us how long our natural lives will be. Whether it be 50..20…5 years... what’s the point? People are going to get caught up in how they are supposed to live 80 years while their neighbor is only supposed to live 50 years. I think it will lead to more unnecessary social/biological drama. What about taking into account that humans smoke, drink, drive too fast, and over all make bad irrational decisions sometimes. How long you naturally live versus how long you actually live. What if you were naturally supposed to live for 100 year but you died at 5 because of accident. It doesn’t change anything or benefit anyone in my opinion if you know how long you are supposed to live.
ReplyDeleteMaybe this study could help people with their health behaviors. Maybe scientists might discover that people who had a certain diet had kids who had naturally lives of 106 so people would start to change their diet because of that.
I definitely would NOT allow my child to be tested. Like I said before it is unnecessary and wouldn’t benefit me. Unless the test was able to tell me that my son or daughter would live until 20 and WHY…then maybe I would do the test. For example if the test was able to show that my child has certain genes that might turn into a fatal disease that if found early can change the final outcome then that would be a positive result but I don’t see very many with this test. And even then if it’s only a possibility I wouldn’t want to live my life worry twice as much because of a “possibility”. It’s like a death sentence, especially if you have a young natural life span. What’s the point of living when apparently I might only live until I’m 35. I definitely don’t see this study going very far. As Caroline mentioned it should be a personal choice if you’d like to know but it shouldn’t be mandated.
I think we need to start thinking about this line now because with all these articles of designer babies and what not..it is a little overwhelming. What will they come up with next? Sometimes I think we are exceeding our clinical need and it’s not benefitting society…it’s making us obsessed and crazy. And as Tamika mentioned I fear that with all this science were losing hope/faith…if only we knew how to share both realms.
Jumping on the bandwagon, I also think that in fifty years, a life span genetic test could be possible and that it would be unethical and unnecessary. Like Laura mentioned, screening tests with no cure are considered unethical, therefore this genetic test that also cannot produce beneficial treatments would be unethical. Unless this genetic test also predicts how people will die so that people can change their lifestyle now, the test is unnecessary. With that in mind, I would not subject my child to think that he or she has a pre-determined life expectancy. More harm could be done by letting someone know that they have a certain amount of time to live. Perhaps by knowing, people would feel depressed (or optimistic if told they had a long life expectancy) and feel justified to live by that number (e.g. take more risks, eat unhealthy, etc.) so that it actually comes true, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. If they did not know, who is to say that they wouldn't live their life differently?
ReplyDeleteWhile new studies such as the telomere/longevity association are innovative, the line on unnecessary genetic testing should be drawn when our genetic knowledge and testing ability would cause more harm than benefits. Screening tests with no cures and genetic tests with no preventative measures prove that our testing ability exceeds our clinical need, or that science lacks clinical solutions (both of which are not beneficial to anyone). Sometimes, ignorance really is bliss.
Jenny, I agree with your arguments that in 50 years a genetic test to predict life span could be possible but that it would be both unethical and unnecessary. As you mentioned, life span testing would be more ethical if the cause of death was identified as well as the number of years. This would give those that are tested an opportunity to change their behavior in order to increase their life span. If this is the goal however, can’t we change our behavior to prolong our life span without genetic life span testing? Everyone knows what they have to do in order to be healthy: eat well-balanced meals, exercise daily, decrease stress, abstain from drugs, tobacco, and limit alcohol use, and decrease risk-taking behaviors. Does this knowledge lead to behavior change? For most people, it does not. Therefore, would genetic life span and causes of death testing even be beneficial?
DeleteAs others already mentioned, so much goes into an individual’s life span other than genetics. For example, their environment, food intake, activity, protective and risk behaviors, and so much more. Another aspect of life span is also accidents. What happens if an individual thinks they are living until they are 100 and they get hit by a car when they are 16? So many different things impact our life span, there will never be a guarantee.
I would not want my child to be tested. As I wrote above, there are so many different factors that play into life span that the test would most likely not even be accurate. Also, I would not want my child walking around with an expiration date on their forehead. To me, life is precious because we do not know what the future holds and I would want to keep that mystery alive for my child.
The genetic knowledge and testing ability will absolutely exceed our clinical need in the future. It is important to set regulations on unnecessary genetic testing. If the testing is not going to lead to better treatment, prevention or clinical care, it should not be used. I believe the government has to play a more powerful role in the initiation and production of different genetic research and testing.
I know that teleomere length is associated with longevity. My mother takes isolated milk protein I believe from a company called immunocal and they had shown that it helped to reduce the the speed of teleomere shortening, there are pictures of people who have been taking this for some years in there life and a person who is 70 look like they are in their fifties and such.
ReplyDeleteBut like many of my classmates I would agree that prematurely finding out ones life span would be not only depressing ( it the number is low) but misleading no one knows if someone is going to have an accident or drink/smoke to much causing them to develop a disease. I feel it also take a certain purpose out of living, "here is how long your child will live" and that is a heavy burden to hold as a parent and then telling the child. I think it may sound like a decent idea but it is not well thought out. The test would only show in a perfect non-damaging environment how long this person would live, and even then how precise would the predictor be.
In fifty years I do not see this being a possible type of genetic testing for many reasons. First and foremost, as seen with the zebra-finches, just the testing period must last as long as the subject will live in order to evaluate the accuracy of the telomere’s predictions. Therefore just as the initial tests on the finches lasted almost 9 years, human testing could last beyond 75 years as that remains the average life span of men and women in America. Furthermore, in considering that zebra-finches are not the most closely related animal relative of the human, I think jumping from finches to human testing is too large of a difference without intermediate steps and tests of other animals in between to assess the validity of this claim.
ReplyDeleteIf this test were going to be available though, I would NOT allow my children to be tested. I don’t believe that the length and deterioration of one’s telomeres can truly predict one’s life span because that test is taken at one point in time and thus the results will only speak to the development of the telomere then. This means that any other factors that contribute to gene expression and even mutation such as behaviors and environmental factors encountered later in life will not be taken into account even though they have proven to significantly impact one’s life and how long they can live. As admitted in the study, they know they need to look more into the idea of gene interaction and the importance of inherited and influential factors but it seems to me that these telomere tests could only ever be affected if taken multiple times throughout one’s life and besides being a nuisance, they could still be inaccurate. In the end such excessive testing would go beyond our clinical need because these tests ultimately only tell us when we will die and offer no aid or medical knowledge for how to extend that time. Thus these tests are completely pointless and everyone should just live their lives naturally by understanding that death, although sad, is a just a part of life.
I don't buy this. How are humans even vaguely comparable to zebra finches? They're not even mammals! How long we live has been researched and debated ever since the creation of man, but no one has ever come up with anything definitive. Just because science currently conceptualizes genes as holding the objective answers to our physical existence does not mean we are all of a sudden going to discover our death date through them.
ReplyDeleteHumans shape and influence their enviornments and are shaped and influenced BY their enviornments far more than other comparable animals and if we can't even accurately pinpoint their lifespans, why would we think its possible to figure out our own? Like others stated, life choices such as abuse of drugs and alcohol, suicide, fatal injuries, and I don't know...maybe something called fate might also have a minor effect.
I wouldn't bother getting tested and I wouldn't tell my children/anyone for that matter to get tested because belief in a type of lifespan expecting genetic test alters a person's perception of their purpose in life in ways that are not gauranteed to be beneficial individually or socially. So I agree with others who have stated that it is unethical and I think it goes beyond clinical necessity into a realm of false appeasement of human insecurities.
Regardless of whether we have the capability to provide such a test within the next 50 years, there are a number of ethical issues with administering such a test, let alone forcing a young child to take it without their consent. When the results came back, they could seriously impact the parent-child relationship. If one child is going to die young due to a genetic disease, why would the parents choose to make any investments of time, love, or education in that child? It's just going to die anyway. This is of course a very callous (and hopefully unlikely) reaction, but the dynamic maybe be changed in subtler ways. If you can only afford to send one child to an expensive private school or on a semester abroad, the choice would be obvious. Imagine being the child and knowing that your parents have no expectations for your future. Just like it's not permissible to test children under 18 for BRCA 1/2 because they are unable to give consent, I would hope that this test would not be permitted either. Though most people would choose not to test their child, not everyone would have the responsibility or foresight to abstain.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important themes we've covered in this class has been the interplay between genes and environment in determining our health status and disease risk. This line of research again falls into this realm, as discussed by previous commentators. Though the test would provide a natural genetic lifespan for the patient, there are so many other factors that contribute to our health - from freak accidents to remembering to wear sunscreen. Telomeres are only one very small contributor to our life expectancy.
As many people have said, there is a good possibility that such a test will exist in 50 years, especially considering the pace of technology. However, there are several problems with such a test. Telomeres could represent a very reasonable test for longevity because they protect the DNA and basic animal studies have shown a correlation between telomeres and age or longevity. However, as many people have said, there are many other factors that affect longevity such as environmental conditions or diseases acquired later in life. At best, a test of telomeres could give a baseline test that provides limited information about longevity given certain assumptions regarding environmental, and social conditions.
ReplyDeleteI would not have my child tested because of the risk for job or health care discrimination. Even with the ACA, GINA, and other basic rights laws, there is always the risk of unfair treatment. Also, a telomere test may not be fully accurate, and even if it is, the risk of negatively affecting his/her psychological development is not a worthwhile risk. However, that does not mean that a telomere test is necessarily a bad idea for adults. A key limitation of a telomere test is its inability to consider other factors that affect health. However, in the future, and by combining other pertinent information like genetic profiles for disease and social factors, it could be possible to create a risk-adjusted test that could moderately accurate test that could reasonably predict lifespan for an adult who's environmental and social conditions have already been established.
Though I would not
I can't imagine why a parent would want to test their child for such a thing. The repercussions don't appear to be beneficial and it's likely they'll leave the individual worse off. Would a little girl's value or worth decrease if her telomeres were found to be shorter than average? The immediate answer is absolutely not. But you can bet that such information influences how she'll be perceived. Her parents might subconsciously become concerned or worried and this will reflect in their parenting behaviors. And as Sami pointed out, the situation can become more problematic if the information falls in the wrong hands. We can't rule out that this girl could be discriminated against by health insurance companies.
ReplyDeleteTelomeres can tell us a lot of things. But instead of trying to generate genetic tests for every single possible thing out there, it would be more conducive to focus on learning how to prevent DNA from shortening by learning how cancers or other diseases affect telomeres.
I do not think that, in 50 years, it could be a possibility that genetic testing could predict a person’s life span. Like Bianca said, a study to determine the correlation between telomere length and life span in humans would be difficult to do. As was seen with the study with the finches, such a study would have to last as long as the life expectancy of the subjects in order to determine the accuracy of the telomere’s predictions. The human life span is approximately 120 years (much more than 50 years), so a human study would have to last that long. Also, such a study would be difficult because you cannot study humans in laboratories for their entire lives as you can birds. And when you study people in the real world, many additional factors (besides genes), such as diet, exercise, stress, smoking, and environmental toxins can affect how long a person lives. So any study would have to be adjusted to take into account these factors, and I feel that such adjustments would be quite complex and difficult. (At the same time, however, even though there are these difficulties in performing this kind of study on humans, there is the very real possibility that genetic testing to predict human life span will be available before there is enough evidence to support the accuracy and reliability of such a test, as we see with many of the DTC genetic tests. So, we could see predictive genetic tests for life span in 50 years.)
ReplyDeleteIf genetic testing to predict human life span was available, I would not make my young child be tested. For one thing, there are so many external factors that affect how long a person lives (as mentioned above), and an accident can claim a person’s life at any moment. As Sami said, a predictive test could give a baseline measurement, but that number is subject to change depending on external factors. So, I find it difficult to see to see the point or to see the value in genetic testing for life span. (The one potential benefit I can think of, though, is that if it is found that a person has shorter telomeres—indicative of a shorter lifespan—then you could look for biological factors that may contribute to a person’s shorter lifespan and possibly provide treatment to extend their life.)
(continued)
ReplyDeleteMoreover, there are too many issues that arise with this kind of testing (many of which arise for genetic tests for genes associated with diseases). First, knowing how long a person will live could affect their attitude toward life and thus how they live their life. If a test says that a person will have a short life span, they may develop a fatalistic attitude or feelings of depression. (Of course, such a test result could have the opposite effect, motivating a person to live a healthy life and make the most of their time alive.) On the other hand, if a person finds out that they will have a long life span, they may feel invincible or have a false sense of security, and thus make unhealthy lifestyle choices (that may ultimately shorten their life). Second, from a parent’s perspective, knowing how long their child will live may affect how they treat their child. And what if a test predicts that children from the same family will have different life spans? How does that affect how parents treat their children? How the siblings treat each other? And do parents tell their children that they had the children’s genes tested to see how long they will live? Third, not only could such a test affect how parents treat their children, it could also affect how society values people. For example, people may be discriminated against by virtue of their shorter life span. Finally, a genetic test to predict life span could affect how people select mates or who they choose to marry.
I think it is difficult to say where the line should be drawn on unnecessary genetic testing. But when genetic testing steps out of the realm of health science, that is when it gets to be unsettling. I believe that our genetic knowledge and testing ability may one day exceed our clinical need. In science, there is no end point, and inquisitive scientists are always researching new questions. Discoveries that are beyond the clinical realm will inevitably be made, and companies seeking to make money will use this to their advantage. We may soon have testing for supposed “cheating genes” or “motivation genes” or “compatibility genes.”
I think in fifty years this kind of genetic testing could definitely be a possibility. However I personally would not want to how long I am going to live. Knowing when I was going to die would most likely have a significant impact on my life and my emotions. Just the same, I would not make my child get tested. Dana also brought up a good point in considering insurance companies. They might not be willing to take client knowing they only had a certain number of years to live and would cost them more money. Even if this kind of genetic test were developed, there are other factors to consider when trying to determine lifespan like exercise, diet and overall health. Knowing the length of a persons telomeres may only give a general estimate of how long a person will live. A person’s behavior and personal choices also play an important role in how long they live. If someone decides to smoke cigarettes for twenty years of their life and they get lung cancer, they may die long before their telomeres estimated. Also knowing how long you are going to live might change someone people’s behaviors. If a person knew that they only had a few years to live, they might not care to eat right or try to be healthy because they have been told they are going to die soon anyways.
ReplyDeleteI feel this test is unnecessary and would not really benefit anyone much. I think the time and money being spent on this could be better spent on other things like vaccines and cures to major diseases.
I very much agree with Kristely's statement. I too fear that scientific progress has the ability to take away from the hope and faith that is so unique to humans. I fear that the knowledge of individual lifespan will have an immense and irreversible affect on humankind. What exactly are we supposed to do with this information? If I were told at age 5 that I would die at 20, what would my life had been like? Would I have gone to school, fostered friendships, set goals for myself? If I were told I had until age 90 how would I have lived? Would I have spent my life looking towards the future and forgetting the present? Who knows. And I do not want to know. This type of genetic testing would take away from equal opportunity and create great social divides. Additionally, as most mentioned before, the environmental factors have not yet been considered. I do not agree with this test at all.
ReplyDeleteI agree that I think in or within 50 years such a genetic test will be available however I believe that this falls under unnecessary genetic testing and unnecessary use of funds within genetic research. First of all environment is such a huge factor in human life. The leading cause cause of death for people age 18-24 is accidents, homicides and suicide and I doubt that a person's genetic material will account for these unexpected factors. Second of all if this genetic test were to catch on it would take away from faith and free will in humans. A definitive timeline may never allow someone to reach their full potential or live a fulfilling life because they would always know how much time is left until it is over. I don't know if any of you have seen the movie "In Time" but it pertains to this topic. The movie is set in the future and money is replaced with increments of time, instead of being paid with money you are given more time at your job and you pay for goods, rent, and other bills with time. The rich people in the movie have a lot of time and can live forever therefore moving slowly and wasting time is seen as a form of wealth. The overall message is that living day to day and appreciating the time we have with the people in our lives is the most important thing in life. If we knew how much time each of clocks had from the get-go through genetic tests we may not appreciate the time we have or achieve the things we want to achieve because people may limit themselves from day 1.
ReplyDeleteClaire, I definitely agree with you about the environment and how it is a huge factor in our life. There is not way that we can predict our life when the environment around us has so many factors that can shorten our life such as accidents, homicides, etc. I also agree about living day to day and appreciating the time we have. Knowing my a life expectancy would take a toll on my life and I wouldn't live it to my fullest being happy and just living day to day.
DeleteI understand that telomeres can be used as a genetic test to predict our longevity, but I believe that this testing has gone a little above and beyond. I think that all these genetic tests could be positive in a way that we can discover more about our bodies and use it for further research to prevent disease.
I think it is definitely possible that in fifty years genetic testing could predict your life span. Even at the current time, using characteristics such as the average life expectancy, your current lifestyle, family history, and gender can give a general idea of what a persons natural life span could be. I think that as technology advances and more is understood about the human genome, predicting lifespan will become more and more accurate.
ReplyDeleteI believe that like other genetic testing, it should be up to the individual if you want to take it and find out the results. I do not think that making your child take the test it fair to them. As a parent, you should be taking care of your child in a way that would give them the healthiest, longest natural lifespan as possible, so knowing how long they were expected to live should not influence your role as a parent.
There are several ethical issues that could arise from this kind of testing. I feel that it is an invasion of privacy to the child if a parent forced them to get this kind of test. It is the child's life therefore, that private information should only be accessed by them. This test, like all other genetic tests, would bring about a whole array of ethical, legal, and emotional issues.
I believe that science may one day be able to predict certain aspects of a person's life, however, it will not be able to predict the exact life span. There are simply too many extrinsic factors that happen throughout a person's life that could alter his or her lifespan. While genetic predispositions cannot be overlooked, I believe that environmental factors have a much more significant impact on a person's life.
ReplyDeleteFor me, this type of genetic testing is taking it too far. There are some many variables that can arise from a false test that can affect a family. I feel as though this type of testing is unethical and can lead to unnecessary stress and complications. It is a situation where parents would be expecting a certain life for their child before they even left the hospital. This, to me, is unethical and unfair.
When some one searches for his essential
ReplyDeletething, so he/she wants to be available that in detail, thus that thing is
maintained over here.
Look into my homepage : errol
I pay a quick visit day-to-day some web sites and sites to read content,
ReplyDeletehowever this web site presents quality based posts.
Look into my blog ... Pur Essence Reviews