He also runs the blog entitled “In Search of Enligthenment.“
Farrelly applied the “Page 99 Test” to his new book, Aging and the Ethics of Longevity Science, and reported the following:
Page 99 of Aging and the Ethics of Longevity Science begins in mid-sentence, detailing how, in her novel Frankenstein, Mary Shelley portrays the potential perils of experimental science that transcends the boundaries between life and death. Shelley’s creature represents those perils, and he ends up killing everyone that Victor Frankenstein loves. The page then details how, like Shelley’s invocation of the creature, many philosophers invoke the potential harms of experimental gerontology by engaging in the creative use of their imagination. These harms are sometimes portrayed as perpetual boredom, or the harmful impact life extension would have on jobs or the damage to the environment. But, as page 99 later contends, what most philosophers ignore or marginalize are the potential benefits of translational gerontology, such as improving quality of life in late life. The page concludes by detailing how, given the “medialization” of the science profession- where celebrity scientists can reach large audiences of the public but often make claims that are not scientifically credible- the public can form a distorted understanding of the societal implications of the science of healthy aging.Visit Colin Farrelly's website.
Perhaps surprisingly, page 99 actually provides a succinct summation of the central argument in the book! Aging and the Ethics of Longevity Science is concerned, primarily, with the role of imagination both in experimental science and in bioethical debates and political imagination. The imagery of the creature in Frankenstein is mentioned with the opening words on page 99, which reads “…electricity, and body parts into science that transgressed the boundaries between life and death,…”. The cover of the book has the image of the shadow of the creature from Frankenstein off in the distance, standing on an iceberg (which represents aging). The image of the creature represents the imaginary harms the human mind can conjure up for research on the biology of aging. And the book’s central argumentation is that, while there are real potential harms that must be safely navigated to bring experimental gerontology from the bench to the clinic, a credible harm/benefit ethical analysis must consider the full range of potential benefits that would come from slowing the rate of biological aging. These include: (1) improving quality of life throughout the adult lifespan, but especially for people reaching older ages; (2) reaping significant economic benefits from healthy longevity, especially when accompanied by a reduction in (vs. expansion of) the healthspan– lifespan gap; (3) reducing some of the persistent health disparities that arise from variations in unequal environmental exposures; (4) increasing reproductive longevity and improved maternal health; (5) reducing the care burdens that typically fall (at least disproportionately) on daughters to care for their aging parents; and (6) Improving human, animal, and environmental health. While page 99 does not address the details of these six points, if does effectively frame a critical insight of the book – that the exercise of our imagination about the potential benefits and harms of experimental science can have a profound impact on how we approach the regulation of, and support for, this science.
--Marshal Zeringue









