See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/40690908

Mapping Community Concerns About Radical Extensions of Human Life

Expectancy

Article in American Journal of Bioethics · December 2009

DOI: 10.1080/15265160903316446 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS

2 58

5 authors, including:

Brad Partridge Wayne Hall

The University of Queensland The University of Queensland
65 PUBLICATIONS 1,431 CITATIONS 1,055 PUBLICATIONS 75,367 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jayne Lucke Mair Underwood

La Trobe University The University of Queensland
225 PUBLICATIONS 4,188 CITATIONS 23 PUBLICATIONS 404 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Brad Partridge on 12 June 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [University of Queensland]
On: 10 December 2009
Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907688116]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The American Journal of Bioethics

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713606739

Mapping Community Concerns About Radical Extensions of Human Life

Expectancy
Brad Partridge a; Wayne Hall a; Jayne Lucke a; Mair Underwood b; Helen Bartlett b
a
School of Population Health, University of Queensland, b Australasian Centre on Ageing, University
of Queensland,

First published on: 09 December 2009

To cite this Article Partridge, Brad, Hall, Wayne, Lucke, Jayne, Underwood, Mair and Bartlett, Helen(2009) 'Mapping
Community Concerns About Radical Extensions of Human Life Expectancy', The American Journal of Bioethics, 9: 12,
W4 — W5, First published on: 09 December 2009 (iFirst)
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15265160903316446
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15265160903316446

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 The American Journal of Bioethics, 9(12): W4–W5, 2009
Copyright
c Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1526-5161 print / 1536-0075 online
DOI: 10.1080/15265160903316446

Correspondence

Mapping Community Concerns About

Radical Extensions of Human Life
Expectancy
Brad Partridge, School of Population Health, University of Queensland
Wayne Hall, School of Population Health, University of Queensland
Jayne Lucke, School of Population Health, University of Queensland
Mair Underwood, Australasian Centre on Ageing, University of Queensland
Helen Bartlett, Australasian Centre on Ageing, University of Queensland
Downloaded By: [University of Queensland] At: 23:19 10 December 2009

Adrian Bunn is correct in his assessment of our target article
(Partridge et al. 2009) that we “offered no normative argu-
ment about whether life-extension and anti-aging technolo-
gies ought to be developed” (68). Our task was an empirical
one: to test the validity of the commonly made assumption
that the public would either wholeheartedly welcome or
oppose the prospect of deliberately increasing maximum
human lifespan (Lucke and Hall 2005). Our results showed,
as Bunn (2009) notes, that many participants “who personally
found value in developing life-extending technologies” (79)
nonetheless “worried deeply about the impact of everybody
extending their life spans” (79).
We also agree that many of the most common in prin-
ciple objections to personal life extension “are not com-
pelling” (Partridge and Hall 2007). For the most part, this
was the view of most of our participants. For them the major
concerns were about the potential impact of radically longer
life spans on the wider community, namely, the environ-
mental and economic impacts; the unfairness of differential
access to expensive longevity technologies; etc. We found
Bunn’s (2009) suggestion persuasive that using “a narrative
framework” to examine the idea of prolonging human life
spans makes it “practically inevitable that an evaluation of an
individuals’ personal narrative is also a moral evaluation
of the impact of her life on the people and the environ-
ment that have figured prominently in her own narrative”
(79).
D. Gareth Jones and Maja Whitaker (2009) criticize a
number of assumptions that they accuse us of making. We
do not recognize any of these assumptions as our own.
The first such putative assumption is “that human life span
extension is a new problem” (77). We have not assumed that
it is. Elsewhere we have argued (Lucke and Hall 2005) that
more radical forms of human life extension will amplify
the problems already produced by the extension of average
human life expectancy in developed countries over the past
century.
Our second putative assumption is “that strong forms
of life-extension interventions will eventuate as depicted
and with the major social and ethical implications outlined”
(Jones and Whitaker 2009, 77). We agree that “radical possi-
bilities may prove deceptively speculative” (77) and “need
to be challenged” (77). One of us has made a similar point in
another bioethical debate (Carter et al. 2009). We also agree
that “the ethical and social debate [should be grounded] in
a thorough understanding of the limitations of all current
technologies, rather than in their more speculative future ex-
tensions. Herein lies the importance of hearing from the ex-
perts when considering such matters” (Jones and Whitaker
2009, 77).
Before embarking on our empirical work we reviewed
the literature (Lucke and Hall 2006), interviewed re-
searchers in fields relevant to human ageing (Underwood
et al. 2009a) and we have recently examined experiences
with other related medical enhancement technologies
(Lucke et al. 2009). We found that the experts disagreed
about the prospects of radical human life extension, as con-
firmed. In the face of such disagreement and strong advo-
cacy of public funding for human life extension research
(eg, de Grey 2005), we believe it is appropriate to explore
community concerns about human life extension, if it were
to eventuate.
Our third putative assumption is “that the ther-
apy/enhancement divide is a clear-cut one” (Jones and
Whitaker 2009, 77). No such assumption was made. As we
reported, participants who opposed technologies that aim

Address correspondence to Brad Partridge, Level 2 Public Health Building, School of Population Health, University of Queensland,
Herston Road, Herston, Australia, 4006. E-mail: b.partridge@uq.edu.au

W4 ajob

to extend human life well beyond the longest documented
current human life expectancy (120 years) often invoked a
distinction between treatment and enhancement. There is
undoubted fuzziness of the boundaries between treatment
and enhancement but this does not invalidate the distinc-
tion any more than the arbitrariness in defining baldness
implies the absence of any distinction between a bald head
and a full head of hair.
Richard Settersten and colleagues (2009) identify the
major challenges in realizing the call made by Eric Juengst
and colleagues (2003) for “public deliberations” about the
implications of research on human life extension. Our study
was very much intended as a first step in this task and
revealed many of the same challenges.
Their interviews with biogerontologists indicate that
there is no consensus among the experts about the language
that should be used to describe these interventions. Most
expressed “distaste” for the term “anti-aging” and seldom
used it but struggled “to find a more acceptable term” (Set-
tersten Jr. et al. 2009). We agree that a richer understanding
Downloaded By: [University of Queensland] At: 23:19 10 December 2009
of public attitudes towards life extension requires a care-
ful probing of how members of the public understand key
terms. Our study was very much a first step in this process
that we hope will inspire others to do better. A richer ac-
count of a broader range of issues that were identified by
our participants has been published elsewhere (Underwood
et al., 2009b).
Settersten and colleagues (2009) note calls are often
made for more public dialogue about new technologies such
as anti-aging interventions but the methods for doing so
remain to be developed and evaluated. We agree. But we
should not allow these challenges to prevent us from try-
ing! We need to talk to people in the community and engage
them in a dialogue about the issues. That is what we have
started to do. Our results have not exhausted the topic but
they are sufficient to call into question the often-made claim
that the public will either wholeheartedly embrace or com-
prehensively reject the pursuit of research into technologies
that aim to radically extend human life expectancy (Lucke
and Hall 2005). Foremost in the minds of many commu-
nity members are the possible social consequences of the
widespread adoption of any such technologies that may be
developed.

December, Volume 9, Number 12, 2009
View publication stats
Extend Human Life Span
REFERENCES
Bunn, A. 2009. Evaluating life extension from a narrative perspec-
tive. American Journal of Bioethics 9(12): 79–80.
Carter, A., Bartlett, P. and Hall, W. 2009. Scare mongering and the
anticipatory ethics of experimental technologies. American Journal
of Bioethics 9(5): 47–48.
de Grey, A. 2005. Resistance to debate on how to postpone ageing
is delaying progress and costing lives. EMBO Reports 6: s49–s53.
Jones, D. G., and Maja Whitaker, M. 2009. Finding a context for
discussing human life-extension. American Journal of Bioethics 9(12):
77–79.
Juengst, E. T., R. H. Binstock, M. J. Mehlman, and S. G. Post. 2003.
Antiaging research and the need for public dialogue. Science 299:
1323.
Lucke, J., Diedrichs, P. C., Partridge, B. and Hall, W. 2009. Antic-
ipating the anti-ageing pill: Lessons from the history of the oral
contraceptive pill and hormone replacement therapy. EMBO Re-
ports 10: 1–6.
Lucke, J. and Hall, W. 2005. Who wants to live forever? EMBO
Reports 6: 98–102.
Lucke, J. and Hall, W. 2006. Strong and weak life extension: What
is feasible and most likely? Australasian Journal of Ageing 25: 58–62.
Partridge, B., and Hall, W. 2007. The search for Methuselah: Should
we endeavour to extend human life expectancy? EMBO Reports 8:
888–891.
Partridge, B., Underwood, M., Lucke, J., Bartlett, H., and Hall, W.
2009. Ethical concerns in the community about technologies to ex-
tend human life span. American Journal of Bioethics 9(12): 68–76.
Settersten Jr., R. A., Fishman, J. R., Lambrix, M. A., Flatt, M. A., and
Binstock, R. H. 2009. The salience of language in probing public
attitudes about life extension. American Journal of Bioethics 9(12):
81–82.
Underwood, M., Bartlett, H., and Hall, W. 2009a. Researchers’ pro-
fessional and personal attitudes towards life extension. Biogerontol-
ogy 10: 73–81.
Underwood, M., Bartlett, H., Partridge, B., Lucke, J., and Hall, W.
2009b. Community perceptions on the significant extension of life:
An exploratory study among urban adults in Brisbane, Australia.
Social Science and Medicine, 68: 496–503.
ajob W5