The Longevity Dividend is a theory that says we hope to intervene scientifically to slow the aging process, which will also delay the onset of age-related diseases. Delaying aging just seven years would slash rates of conditions like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease and heart disease in half. That’s the longevity part.

The dividend comes from the social, economic, and health bonuses that would then be available to spend on schools, energy, jobs, infrastructure—trillions of dollars that today we spend on healthcare services. In fact, at the rate we’re going, by the year 2020 one out of every $5 spent in this country will be spent on healthcare. Obviously, something has to change.

Enter the Longevity Dividend. The Longevity Dividend doesn’t suggest that we live longer; instead, it calls for living better. The idea is that if we use science to increase healthspan, not lifespan. In other words, tomorrow’s 50-year-old would have the health profile of a 43-year-old.

It might sound like science fiction, but, in fact, it’s quite possible. We’re already doing it in some animal models using genetic and dietary interventions, techniques related to what scientists call “the biology of aging.”

Getting there in humans, however, means embracing an entirely new approach to our thinking about disease and aging, and how we conduct scientific research into the two.

Getting Scientists’ Attention

A group of eminent researchers first proposed the Longevity Dividend in a 2006 article published in The Scientist. The authors, S. Jay Olshansky, PhD, professor of epidemiology and biostatics at the University of Illinois in Chicago, Daniel P. Perry, executive director of the Alliance for Aging Research in Washington, DC, Richard A. Miller, MD, PhD, professor of pathology at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, and Robert N. Butler, MD, president and CEO of the International Longevity Center in New York, intended their essay to be a “general statement to scientists” about the need for a paradigm shift in the way we think about aging and disease.

The researchers also met with U.S. senators who served on the Senate committee that oversaw the budget for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). “We told them we believed Read the rest of this entry »

Round-up of April articles and news on neuroscience, brain development and cognitive health:

Games for Health Conferences to host new Cognitive Health Track:

For the first time, a new Cognitive Health track -Powered by SharpBrains- will cover eleven brain fitness and cognitive health topics during the 5th Annual Games for Health Conference. The current price is $379, with a 15% discount if you use code “sharp09″ (without quotation) when you register Here. Details: June 11-12th at the Hyatt Harborside Hotel in Boston, MA.

Bilingual Babies Get Head Start — Before They Can Talk:

- “Unlike the monolingual group, the bilingual group was able to successfully learn a new sound type and use it to predict where each character would pop up…The bilingual babies’ skill applies to more than just switching between languages. Mehler likened this apparently enhanced cognitive ability to a brain selecting “the right tool for the right operation”—also called executive function.”

- “In this basic process, the brain, ever flexible, nimbly switches from one learned response to another as situations change…Monolingual babies hone this ability later in their young lives, Mehler suggests.”

Study shows how kids’ stress hurts memory:

“Now, research is providing what could be crucial clues to explain how childhood poverty translates into dimmer chances of success: Read the rest of this entry »

Round-up of recent articles on neuroscience, brain development and cognitive health:

Encephalon 68: A carnival of neuroscience:

Chris hosts a great collection of neuroscience and psychology posts in his signature Q&A style.

Bilingual Babies Get Head Start — Before They Can Talk:

- Unlike the monolingual group, the bilingual group was able to successfully learn a new sound type and use it to predict where each character would pop up.

- The bilingual babies’ skill applies to more than just switching between languages. Mehler likened this apparently enhanced cognitive ability to a brain selecting “the right tool for the right operation”—also called executive function.

- In this basic process, the brain, ever flexible, nimbly switches from one learned response to another as situations change.

- Monolingual babies hone this ability later in their young lives, Mehler suggests.”

Study shows how kids’ stress hurts memory:

“Now, research is providing what could be crucial clues to explain how childhood poverty translates into dimmer chances of success: Chronic stress from growing up poor appears to have a direct impact on the brain, leaving children with impairment in at least one key area – working memory.”

Returning troops getting tested for brain injuries:

- “More than 150,000 service members from the Marines, Air Force, Army and Navy have undergone the testing that became mandatory last year. Those who suffer a concussion or similar head injury will get a follow-up test.”

Diabetes ‘impact on brain power’:

- “Failure to control type 2 diabetes may have a long-term impact on the brain, research has suggested.

- Lead researcher Dr Jackie Price said: “Either hypos lead to cognitive decline, or cognitive decline makes it more difficult for people to manage their diabetes, which in turn causes more hypos.

- “A third explanation could be that a third unidentified factor is causing both the hypos and the cognitive decline.”

With three years still left until publication, the fights over the new version of the psychiatric diagnostic manual, the DSM-V, are hotting up and The New York Times has a concise article that covers most of the main point of contention.

- “What you have in the end,” Mr. Shorter said, “is this process of sorting the deck of symptoms into syndromes, and the outcome all depends on how the cards fall.”

- Psychiatrists involved in preparing the new manual contend that it is too early to say for sure which cards will be added and which dropped.

Although I doubt the DSM committee are using that exact metaphor, it certainly illustrates the point that the process requires a certain degree of value-judgement.

It’s interesting, however, that the public debate is currently focused on whether certain diagnoses should be included or not, rather than whether diagnosis itself is useful for psychiatry.

We’ve had psychometrics for a good 100 years that allow us to measure dimensions of human experience and performance with a much greater degree of accuracy than Read the rest of this entry »

Chris hosts a superb edition of Encephalon, presenting the articles as an engaging and pretty comprehensive Q&A session. If you want to read the answers, to the questions below, by some of the best neuroscience and psychology bloggers, simply visit Encephalon 52: Q&A.

Q: What is the relationship between neurogenesis and depression?

Q: For that matter, is there a relationship between depression and diabetes?

Q: What is the molecular basis of bipolar disorder?

Q: Can brain stimulation make you a better driver? Read the rest of this entry »

Interesting recent news:

For more on these news, and commentary: Read the rest of this entry »

Given the current political climate, we are pleased to host this thought-provoking article by 2 of our Expert Contributors. Dear Mr or Mrs Next President: how can you help our minds take better care of our brains?

————–

Ask Not What The Health System Can Do For You…

– By Simon J. Evans, PhD and Paul R. Burghardt, PhD.

With the presidential debates gearing up again we are sure to hear more about health care. But we propose a slightly different question. In addition to asking how we can get more people healthcare coverage, we should also ask why so many people are sick in the first place.

The words of John Kennedy might today be, “Ask not what the health care system can do for you. Ask what you can do to reduce the health care burden”. But before delving into what we can do, let’s take a look at some realities that our next president could face in their first ‘State of the Union’ address.

Read the rest of this entry »

We are very happy that Joaquin Fuster, one of our scientific advisors, has won the 2007 George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience.

The George A. Miller Prize in Cognitive Neuroscience was established in 1995 by the Cognitive Neuroscience Society and the James S. McDonnell Foundation to honor the career contributions of George A. Miller to cognitive neuroscience…The prize is awarded to the nominee whose career is characterized by distinguished and sustained scholarship and research at the cutting-edge of cognitive neuroscience. Extraordinary innovation and high impact on international scientific thinking should be a hallmark of the recipient’s work.

Dr. Joaquin Fuster is Professor of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences at the Neuropsychiatric Institute and Brain Research Institute of University of California at Los Angeles’ School of Medicine. Fuster’s long research career has had wide-ranging implications for our understanding of the brain mechanisms of cognition.

The Neurocritic discusses Joaquin Fuster’s model of cognitive organization, Paul discusses Fuster’s work. Both are pretty technical. We will interview Dr. Fuster for our Neuroscience Interview Series during the summer to make his exciting research accessible to all readers.