E-Letter responses to:

letters: Aubrey D. N. J. de Grey, Leonid Gavrilov, S. Jay Olshansky, L. Stephen Coles, Richard G. Cutler, Michael Fossel, and S. Mitchell Harman Antiaging Technology and Pseudoscience Science 2002; 296: 656a [Full text]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Definitions of AntiAging

Joseph H. Guth, Ph.D.   (18 June 2002)

Technical vs Vernacular Meaning of "Antiaging"

Tom Matthews   (4 June 2002)

Definitions of AntiAging 18 June 2002
Joseph H. Guth, Ph.D., scientific consultant Scientific and Forensic Services Inc. Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Definitions of AntiAging	A response to the letter by de Grey et al. on "antiaging" terminology has been posted. Mr. Tom Matthews has stated in regards to the effects of products "that have not been shown even modestly to reduce the acceleration of mortality with age in the general population" is not completely valid because "their criticism is only valid because they apply their own technical definition of 'antiaging.' If instead, they use the vernacular definition of antiaging, 'to decrease the loss of function and youthful appearance brought on by age,' then many of these products may well be effective, even on science-based grounds. If one allows the additional meaning 'to extend the life-span of the individual,' then fewer, but likely some, products still have reasonable science-based grounds for being effective." Mr. Matthews' arguments add even more clouds where there should be clarity. His contention that the term "antiaging" has been the "vernacular for centuries" is unsupportable. Let's start with some definitions: The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001: "aging": In biology, cumulative changes in an organism, organ, tissue, or cell leading to a decrease in functional capacity. No listing was found for the word "antiaging" there. But let's just use the normal meaning of the prefix anti in its usual sense for this discussion. I didn't find the term "antiaging" in Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary, Second Edition (1983) either. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 2002: "legitimate": being exactly as purposed : neither spurious nor false. Let's explore how long the "vernacular" term has been in play and see how it preceeded the modern "legitimate" research term. Where might we define the starting point of "legitimate" antiaging research? Do we start with the work of Hayflick (1965)? Or possibly McCay and Maynard (1934-35)? Perhaps the work of Steinach (1920), Voronoff (1920), Ellis (1920), Muhlmann (1900), Brown-Sequard (1889), or Eisig (1887) would be a better starting point? My point is that there is no clear starting point to build a realistic timeline for the history of "legitimate" research into the science of aging, and by extension, to the science of "antiaging." It is possible to adopt the creation of the modern scientific method and use that as both part of the definition (Sir Francis Bacon, 1620) and as a starting point. But Man has always experienced the slow decline of functions during a normal life-span and understood that it was a result of some mysterious process labeled "aging." Death ensued when the functions dropped to low enough levels that life could no longer be sustained. So mortality due to finite life-span and aging are not really one and the same. Aging preceeds the ultimate demise of the organism. "Antiaging" then will need a clearer definition. I would proffer that what Matthews is doing is to confuse the analytical definition of "antiaging" with "rejuvenation," a more common vernacular term. I would hope that the purveyors of snake oils, wrinkle-reducing balms, and miracle herbs would take note and avoid crossing this dividing line in the future. If you type "antiaging" into a search engine on the internet, that is what mostly turns up these days. Let them claim to turn the clock back and fleece the most gullible sheep, but don't let them claim biological preservation of youthful condition and life-span extension without cold hard scientific data. I am certain that their efforts at really turning the clock back are fraught with fuzzy hopes and failed hype but "rejuvenation" is not a term that I would hope to see in any legitimate articles in the science of gerontology. When telomerase and associated research gets to the point of being able to predictably reverse the aging process, then we, as gerontologists, may have to come back to this term and reclaim it. Hopefully that won't be too far in the future.
Technical vs Vernacular Meaning of "Antiaging" 4 June 2002
Tom Matthews, Professional Life Extensionist MoreLife.org Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Technical vs Vernacular Meaning of "Antiaging"	I am in full agreement with the authors of "Antiaging technology and pseudoscience" regarding the importance of a science-based approach to antiaging and the frequent lack of sufficient (or even any) scientific basis behind what is called "antiaging medicine" by many organizations and their publications. However, I also think that the authors and other gerontologists have missed the important fact that "aging" and "antiaging," defined as technical terms within the science of gerontology only within the last few decades, are not equivalent in meaning to the vernacular words that have been with us for centuries. The authors appear to forget that such nonequivalence in meaning is the rule for many technical words used within a given science, sometimes with radically different meanings from one science to another. In particular, while the authors state concern about the use of "antiaging" to describe the effects of products "that have not been shown even modestly to reduce the acceleration of mortality with age in the general population," their criticism is only valid because they apply their own technical definition of "antiaging." If instead, they use the vernacular definition of antiaging, "to decrease the loss of function and youthful appearance brought on by age," then many of these products may well be effective, even on science-based grounds. If one allows the additional meaning "to extend the life-span of the individual," then fewer, but likely some, products still have reasonable science-based grounds for being effective. Thus, my suggestion to gerontologists, who do not want to be "tainted" by this vernacular meaning of the term (whether quackery is involved or not), is to first *clearly* state their definition of the term "antiaging" whenever they are writing for any audience of nongerontologists, even including other scientists and health professionals.