Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework

Alan A. Cohen; Brian K. Kennedy; Ulrich Anglas; Anne M. Bronikowski; Joris Deelen; Frédérik Dufour; Gerardo Ferbeyre; Luigi Ferrucci; Claudio Franceschi; Daniela Frasca; Bertrand Friguet; Pierrette Gaudreau; Vadim N. Gladyshev; Efstathios S. Gonos; Vera Gorbunova; Philipp Gut; Mikhail Ivanchenko; Véronique Legault; Jean François Lemaître; Thomas Liontis; Guang Hui Liu; Mingxin Liu; Andrea B. Maier; Otávio T. Nóbrega; Marcel G.M. Olde Rikkert; Graham Pawelec; Sylvie Rheault; Alistair M. Senior; Andreas Simm; Sonja Soo; Annika Traa; Svetlana Ukraintseva; Quentin Vanhaelen; Jeremy M. Van Raamsdonk; Jacek M. Witkowski; Anatoliy I. Yashin; Robert Ziman; Tamàs Fülöp

doi:10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316

Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework

Alan A. Cohen^*, Brian K. Kennedy, Ulrich Anglas, Anne M. Bronikowski, Joris Deelen, Frédérik Dufour, Gerardo Ferbeyre, Luigi Ferrucci, Claudio Franceschi, Daniela Frasca, Bertrand Friguet, Pierrette Gaudreau, Vadim N. Gladyshev, Efstathios S. Gonos, Vera Gorbunova, Philipp Gut, Mikhail Ivanchenko, Véronique Legault, Jean François Lemaître, Thomas LiontisGuang Hui Liu, Mingxin Liu, Andrea B. Maier, Otávio T. Nóbrega, Marcel G.M. Olde Rikkert, Graham Pawelec, Sylvie Rheault, Alistair M. Senior, Andreas Simm, Sonja Soo, Annika Traa, Svetlana Ukraintseva, Quentin Vanhaelen, Jeremy M. Van Raamsdonk, Jacek M. Witkowski, Anatoliy I. Yashin, Robert Ziman, Tamàs Fülöp

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to Journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

165 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

At a recent symposium on aging biology, a debate was held as to whether or not we know what biological aging is. Most of the participants were struck not only by the lack of consensus on this core question, but also on many basic tenets of the field. Accordingly, we undertook a systematic survey of our 71 participants on key questions that were raised during the debate and symposium, eliciting 37 responses. The results confirmed the impression from the symposium: there is marked disagreement on the most fundamental questions in the field, and little consensus on anything other than the heterogeneous nature of aging processes. Areas of major disagreement included what participants viewed as the essence of aging, when it begins, whether aging is programmed or not, whether we currently have a good understanding of aging mechanisms, whether aging is or will be quantifiable, whether aging will be treatable, and whether many non-aging species exist. These disagreements lay bare the urgent need for a more unified and cross-disciplinary paradigm in the biology of aging that will clarify both areas of agreement and disagreement, allowing research to proceed more efficiently. We suggest directions to encourage the emergence of such a paradigm.

Original language	English
Article number	111316
Pages (from-to)	1-8
Number of pages	8
Journal	Mechanisms of Ageing and Development
Volume	191
Early online date	18 Jul 2020
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316
Publication status	Published - Oct 2020

Funding

A.A.C. is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator Salary Award and is a member of the <GS2>Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQ-S)<GS2> funded Centre de recherche du CHUS and Centre de recherche sur le vieillissement, as well as by a CIHR project grant (153011). A.M.S. is supported by a DECRA fellowship from the Australian Research Council (DE180101520). VG and VNG are supported by grants from US National Institutes of Health. D.F. is supported by NIHAG059719 and AG023717. OTN is supported by the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) with a research productivity grant (3035402019-2). S.U. is supported by the NIA/NIH grantsR01AG062623 and R01AG070487. A.I.Y is supported by the NIA/NIH grants RF1AG046860, R01AG070487, and U19AG063893. CF and MI are supported by a grant of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Agreement No. 074-02-2018-330. A.A.C. is supported by a Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) New Investigator Salary Award and is a member of the Fonds de recherche du Québec - Santé (FRQ‐S) funded Centre de recherche du CHUS and Centre de recherche sur le vieillissement, as well as by a CIHR project grant ( 153011 ). A.M.S. is supported by a DECRA fellowship from the Australian Research Council ( DE180101520 ). VG and VNG are supported by grants from US National Institutes of Health . D.F. is supported by NIH AG059719 and AG023717 . OTN is supported by the Brazilian Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) with a research productivity grant ( 3035402019-2 ). S.U. is supported by the NIA/NIH grants R01AG062623 and R01AG070487 . A.I.Y is supported by the NIA/NIH grants RF1AG046860 , R01AG070487 , and U19AG063893 . CF and MI are supported by a grant of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Agreement No. 074-02-2018-330 .

Funders	Funder number
NIHAG059719
National Institutes of Health	AG059719, AG023717
National Institute on Aging	U19AG063893, RF1AG046860, R01AG062623, R01AG070487
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Fonds de Recherche du Québec - Santé	153011
Australian Research Council	DE180101520
Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation	074-02-2018-330
Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico	3035402019-2

Keywords

Aged
Aging
Aging interventions
Aging mechanisms
Aging paradigm
Biology of aging
Epidemiology of aging
Evolution of aging
Philosophy of science

Access to Document

10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316

Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm_A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree and the need for an interdisciplinary frameworkFinal published version, 3.79 MBLicence: Article 25fa Dutch Copyright Act

Persistent URL (handle)

Persistent link

Cite this

Cohen, A. A., Kennedy, B. K., Anglas, U., Bronikowski, A. M., Deelen, J., Dufour, F., Ferbeyre, G., Ferrucci, L., Franceschi, C., Frasca, D., Friguet, B., Gaudreau, P., Gladyshev, V. N., Gonos, E. S., Gorbunova, V., Gut, P., Ivanchenko, M., Legault, V., Lemaître, J. F., ... Fülöp, T. (2020). Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework. Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, 191, 1-8. Article 111316. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316

@article{34adce4307724f498a0972b636515bb9,

title = "Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework",

abstract = "At a recent symposium on aging biology, a debate was held as to whether or not we know what biological aging is. Most of the participants were struck not only by the lack of consensus on this core question, but also on many basic tenets of the field. Accordingly, we undertook a systematic survey of our 71 participants on key questions that were raised during the debate and symposium, eliciting 37 responses. The results confirmed the impression from the symposium: there is marked disagreement on the most fundamental questions in the field, and little consensus on anything other than the heterogeneous nature of aging processes. Areas of major disagreement included what participants viewed as the essence of aging, when it begins, whether aging is programmed or not, whether we currently have a good understanding of aging mechanisms, whether aging is or will be quantifiable, whether aging will be treatable, and whether many non-aging species exist. These disagreements lay bare the urgent need for a more unified and cross-disciplinary paradigm in the biology of aging that will clarify both areas of agreement and disagreement, allowing research to proceed more efficiently. We suggest directions to encourage the emergence of such a paradigm.",

keywords = "Aged, Aging, Aging interventions, Aging mechanisms, Aging paradigm, Biology of aging, Epidemiology of aging, Evolution of aging, Philosophy of science",

author = "Cohen, {Alan A.} and Kennedy, {Brian K.} and Ulrich Anglas and Bronikowski, {Anne M.} and Joris Deelen and Fr{\'e}d{\'e}rik Dufour and Gerardo Ferbeyre and Luigi Ferrucci and Claudio Franceschi and Daniela Frasca and Bertrand Friguet and Pierrette Gaudreau and Gladyshev, {Vadim N.} and Gonos, {Efstathios S.} and Vera Gorbunova and Philipp Gut and Mikhail Ivanchenko and V{\'e}ronique Legault and Lema{\^i}tre, {Jean Fran{\c c}ois} and Thomas Liontis and Liu, {Guang Hui} and Mingxin Liu and Maier, {Andrea B.} and N{\'o}brega, {Ot{\'a}vio T.} and {Olde Rikkert}, {Marcel G.M.} and Graham Pawelec and Sylvie Rheault and Senior, {Alistair M.} and Andreas Simm and Sonja Soo and Annika Traa and Svetlana Ukraintseva and Quentin Vanhaelen and {Van Raamsdonk}, {Jeremy M.} and Witkowski, {Jacek M.} and Yashin, {Anatoliy I.} and Robert Ziman and Tam{\`a}s F{\"u}l{\"o}p",

year = "2020",

month = oct,

doi = "10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316",

language = "English",

volume = "191",

pages = "1--8",

journal = "Mechanisms of Ageing and Development",

issn = "0047-6374",

publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

Cohen, AA, Kennedy, BK, Anglas, U, Bronikowski, AM, Deelen, J, Dufour, F, Ferbeyre, G, Ferrucci, L, Franceschi, C, Frasca, D, Friguet, B, Gaudreau, P, Gladyshev, VN, Gonos, ES, Gorbunova, V, Gut, P, Ivanchenko, M, Legault, V, Lemaître, JF, Liontis, T, Liu, GH, Liu, M, Maier, AB, Nóbrega, OT, Olde Rikkert, MGM, Pawelec, G, Rheault, S, Senior, AM, Simm, A, Soo, S, Traa, A, Ukraintseva, S, Vanhaelen, Q, Van Raamsdonk, JM, Witkowski, JM, Yashin, AI, Ziman, R & Fülöp, T 2020, 'Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework', Mechanisms of Ageing and Development, vol. 191, 111316, pp. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316

TY - JOUR

T1 - Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework

AU - Cohen, Alan A.

AU - Kennedy, Brian K.

AU - Anglas, Ulrich

AU - Bronikowski, Anne M.

AU - Deelen, Joris

AU - Dufour, Frédérik

AU - Ferbeyre, Gerardo

AU - Ferrucci, Luigi

AU - Franceschi, Claudio

AU - Frasca, Daniela

AU - Friguet, Bertrand

AU - Gaudreau, Pierrette

AU - Gladyshev, Vadim N.

AU - Gonos, Efstathios S.

AU - Gorbunova, Vera

AU - Gut, Philipp

AU - Ivanchenko, Mikhail

AU - Legault, Véronique

AU - Lemaître, Jean François

AU - Liontis, Thomas

AU - Liu, Guang Hui

AU - Liu, Mingxin

AU - Maier, Andrea B.

AU - Nóbrega, Otávio T.

AU - Olde Rikkert, Marcel G.M.

AU - Pawelec, Graham

AU - Rheault, Sylvie

AU - Senior, Alistair M.

AU - Simm, Andreas

AU - Soo, Sonja

AU - Traa, Annika

AU - Ukraintseva, Svetlana

AU - Vanhaelen, Quentin

AU - Van Raamsdonk, Jeremy M.

AU - Witkowski, Jacek M.

AU - Yashin, Anatoliy I.

AU - Ziman, Robert

AU - Fülöp, Tamàs

PY - 2020/10

Y1 - 2020/10

N2 - At a recent symposium on aging biology, a debate was held as to whether or not we know what biological aging is. Most of the participants were struck not only by the lack of consensus on this core question, but also on many basic tenets of the field. Accordingly, we undertook a systematic survey of our 71 participants on key questions that were raised during the debate and symposium, eliciting 37 responses. The results confirmed the impression from the symposium: there is marked disagreement on the most fundamental questions in the field, and little consensus on anything other than the heterogeneous nature of aging processes. Areas of major disagreement included what participants viewed as the essence of aging, when it begins, whether aging is programmed or not, whether we currently have a good understanding of aging mechanisms, whether aging is or will be quantifiable, whether aging will be treatable, and whether many non-aging species exist. These disagreements lay bare the urgent need for a more unified and cross-disciplinary paradigm in the biology of aging that will clarify both areas of agreement and disagreement, allowing research to proceed more efficiently. We suggest directions to encourage the emergence of such a paradigm.

AB - At a recent symposium on aging biology, a debate was held as to whether or not we know what biological aging is. Most of the participants were struck not only by the lack of consensus on this core question, but also on many basic tenets of the field. Accordingly, we undertook a systematic survey of our 71 participants on key questions that were raised during the debate and symposium, eliciting 37 responses. The results confirmed the impression from the symposium: there is marked disagreement on the most fundamental questions in the field, and little consensus on anything other than the heterogeneous nature of aging processes. Areas of major disagreement included what participants viewed as the essence of aging, when it begins, whether aging is programmed or not, whether we currently have a good understanding of aging mechanisms, whether aging is or will be quantifiable, whether aging will be treatable, and whether many non-aging species exist. These disagreements lay bare the urgent need for a more unified and cross-disciplinary paradigm in the biology of aging that will clarify both areas of agreement and disagreement, allowing research to proceed more efficiently. We suggest directions to encourage the emergence of such a paradigm.

KW - Aged

KW - Aging

KW - Aging interventions

KW - Aging mechanisms

KW - Aging paradigm

KW - Biology of aging

KW - Epidemiology of aging

KW - Evolution of aging

KW - Philosophy of science

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089945416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089945416&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316

DO - 10.1016/j.mad.2020.111316

M3 - Article

C2 - 32693105

AN - SCOPUS:85089945416

SN - 0047-6374

VL - 191

SP - 1

EP - 8

JO - Mechanisms of Ageing and Development

JF - Mechanisms of Ageing and Development

M1 - 111316

ER -

Lack of consensus on an aging biology paradigm? A global survey reveals an agreement to disagree, and the need for an interdisciplinary framework

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Persistent URL (handle)

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this