From: Dehede011@aol.com
Date: Mon Nov 13 2000 - 10:31:12 MST
In a message dated 11/13/00 8:33:11 AM Pacific Standard Time,
joao.magalhaes@fundp.ac.be writes:<< He's right that looking at gerontology
as a whole, progresses have been minimal when compared, for instance, with
cancer research. And his efforts to bring more attention -- i.e. money --
into aging research should be praised. (It's an interesting perspective that
of claiming gerontology a
failure so far and therefore its need for more funding). Regarding his views
on aging, he has been a conservative scientist for a long time. But then
again, most gerontologists are like that (from personal experience). >>
My understanding of our aging goes about like this:
1. We are doubling our knowledge about once in three and a half years.
2. We are not able so far to make great improvements in the maximum age for
a human being.
3. We have made and are making significant improvements in the quality of
life for the people over say sixty five years of age.
4. We are making increases in the average lifespan due to more people living
longer although less than the maximum age for a human.
Is the above approximately correct?
Ron H.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:31:55 MST