Editor's note: The following article is based on stories reported by CNN and the BBC on April 10 and April 11, 2000, respectively. These articles can be accessed at http://cnn.com/2000/HEALTH/04/10/aging.genes/index.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/health/newsid_708000/708540.stm.

Few people would have moral problems with research to find the genetic links to aging and to age-related diseases. Alzheimer's disease, atherosclerosis, cancer, and other illnesses generally associated with aging are clearly worth fighting. So the news that University of Illinois researchers have found a single gene, "p21," that might be linked to age-related diseases is, all things being equal, good news.

There may still be worries ahead, however. First, it seems very unlikely that all or even most age-related diseases can be stopped by manipulating one gene. Perhaps it is so, but only more research will demonstrate that this is the case. Second, a narrow focus on a gene for aging may discourage both researchers and other individuals to forget that many maladies associated with aging can be reduced by changes in lifestyle. We have known for some years now that osteoporosis can be staved off in many cases through exercise, dietary changes, and hormone therapy. Similarly, diet and exercise significantly reduce the likelihood of dying from atherosclerosis. We need to continue to combat the effects of aging through a multi-pronged approach. Nevertheless, p21 might hold out hope for some who could not otherwise fight the ravages of the aging process.

This raises another important issue, however. Why would anyone want to live longer anyway? Perhaps the answer to this question is self- evident, but I am not sure. Obviously, however long we live, we would like to live free from age-related diseases for as long as possible. Still, a scientific cottage industry is developing to ward off not just age-related disease, but aging itself. At a recent conference held at the University of Pennsylvania, several scientists argued that through genetic advances we might be able to extend the human lifespan by ten, fifteen, or maybe even one hundred fifty years. Would anyone want to live a hundred fifty years? It occurred to me while listening to the arguments at that conference that the answer to that question is not a unequivocal "yes."

For the largely affluent American audience present at that conference, most have the kinds of lives they would like to extend. Nevertheless, I recall asking my aging grandmother if she would like to live forever. Her answer was an enthusiastic "no." She felt she had been here long enough, worked hard enough, and experienced enough of life's troubles to bid a fond adieu to this world and its pains. And could you imagine how a Kosovar refugee might answer that question? Or a beggar in New Delhi? Or a dissident in communist China? Under those conditions one might want to see an end in sight that is nearer rather than farther away.

The point is, I am quite sure we ought not treat aging as a disease to be eradicated. We should work to reduce the debilitations of age-related disease, but there are good reasons not to want to hang around here forever. Moreover, we need a national (perhaps global) dialogue about why we want to extend human lifespan in the first place. There are some not-so-lovely selfish reasons why people want to live forever. Do we really want serial killers and drug lords to live twice the normal human lifespan? Should we extend human life merely so individuals can participate longer in a consumer-driven marketplace full of computer shopping networks and television psychics? It is not at all clear that extending human lifespan for the sake of merely living longer is a good worth pursuing; not to mention the fact that there would be a social stratification between those who can afford access to the technology and those who could not afford it.

There is nothing inherently immoral in extending human lifespan. Some of the persons whose lives are recorded in the Hebrew scriptures of the Old Testament certainly lived longer than we do today. But the psalmist reminds us that, "The length of our days is seventy years--or eighty, if we have the strength; yet their span is but trouble and sorrow, for they quickly pass, and we fly away" (Psalm 90:10).

The only legitimate reasons for wanting to live longer, it seems to me, would be if by so doing I could serve others better, reduce more suffering, and glorify God longer. Otherwise, my purpose for being here seems sadly self-serving and hollow.