The search for Methuselah

Abstract

One of the oldest dreams of humankind has been to find a way to evade death for as long as possible—or even entirely. Molecular biologists, geneticists and biogerontologists are actively exploring ways to extend the maximum human lifespan by slowing or stopping the ageing process. This so‐called ‘strong’ form of life extension differs from ‘weak’ forms, which focus only on the better prevention and treatment of common diseases, without seeking to alter the upper lifespan limit of about 120 years (Lucke & Hall, 2006). There is no consensus at present on whether anti‐ageing interventions will prove possible or, if such methods are developed, when they will be available and to whom. Nevertheless, the idea of expanding the maximum human lifespan has fascinated philosophers, scientists and writers for millennia—from the biblical Methuselah to the medieval Fountain of Life, and from the Philosopher's Stone to contemporary debates about increasing longevity using scientific methods. Also, given the unwavering media interest in research into slowing or preventing ageing, it is not surprising that ethicists have begun to debate whether we should attempt to increase human longevity—and whether society should finance research focused on this goal. In this article, we briefly summarize the ethical arguments raised in this debate, with a focus on the issues surrounding the more controversial form of life‐extension research that would extend the human life span beyond the current maximum of 120 years. The most fundamental opponents of increasing the maximum human lifespan in this way are conservative critics of biotechnology, who argue that this would be contrary to the ‘natural’ order of things or that it would be against ‘divine’ law. These conservatives have taken ‘pro‐life’ stances in abortion and stem‐cell debates, and are generally wary of human intervention in natural processes, such as reproduction and ageing (Horrobin, 2006 …