Designer genes should be long-wearing
by Beth Teitell

Thursday, August 30, 2001

Are they trying to keep us off balance, or what?

On the very day we learn that the federal government needs to raid $9 billion in Social Security surpluses to balance the budget, we also hear that researchers are homing in on the old-age gene.

That's great. You live to be 150, but sorry sister, your check isn't in the mail.

I'm all for scientific research, but if we're going to force people to outlive the box of baking soda in their refrigerators, let's be responsible about it. And not just financially, either.

If doctors are going to isolate genes conferring longevity, and then design drugs to mimic those genes' function, they should also be required by law - a Geezers' Bill of Rights - to hunt for genes that help a person enjoy those golden years.

Because, as Elaine Benesnoted after a friend remarked that while Elaine may be single, at least she had her health, ``That's not enough.''

(Speaking of ``Seinfeld,'' why can't doctors - or those who play doctors on television - isolate a gene that allows a show to live a long and healthy life? To live past four without developing degenerative problems?)

In his remarks to the press earlier this week, Dr. Thomas Perls, a gerontologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and co-author of the longevity study, seemed to hint at the importance of a pleasant old age - ``We're not trying to find the fountain of youth. We're trying to find the fountain of aging well,'' he said - yet he made no mention of looking for so-called lifestyle, or Sansabelt, genes.

Which chromosone hosts the gene that enables you to pick the right mutual fund, or to feel no embarrassment when writing a check for $1.53 at the supermarket the day before Thanksgiving?

Where's the golf gene?

I want to pick up the newspaper some day soon and read, ``Scientists have learned that it's not how often you practice your chipping, or how much you spent on the Cutter & Buck Rotofil Climaguard windshirt (with V-neck styling) that determines how low your handicap will be, but whether your parents were golfers, and whether your siblings golf.''

None of the articles on the old-age gene said how long it would take to find this thing, so as a person with a growing interest in the subject, I was happy to hear about a Web site that says you may not be as old as your birth certificate indicates.

``How old are you really?'' asks the headline in My Generation, the AARP's new magazine aimed at baby boomers. ``Your actual age is far less relevant to your health and longevity than your biological age.''

I quickly logged onto www.realage.com. I must say I was surprised by the questions, many of which asked about heart rate and disease history and cholesterol. I thought they'd be more along the lines of:

If you were telling a friend that you were surprised about something, would you say, a) ``I was surprised,'' or b) ``I was like, whoah!''.

The last time you went to the Gap, did you find many things to buy, or did you hear yourself saying, ``Honestly, I don't know why they cut shirts so low these days . . .''

So how old am I? Needless to say I cheated on the test, but even for me, I may have gone to far. I'm eight - too young to work full time.

Or, for that matter, to care about some granny gene or the Social Security fund. I must say, it sure is easier this way.