**11. Ethical issues (the impact of science on society)**

By 2050, novel drug design would have produced new class of medicine to treat all known 6000 genes. We would not only produce new treatment but also we would have new food, new fuel, and new medicine to treat every disease known to mankind to protect, preserve, and prolong human life beyond 100 years. This section discusses the impact of prolonging human life beyond 100 years.

Our attempt to prolong human life by shutting off the genes of the old age diseases raises several ethical and moral questions. We face the same population problem when we succeed in shutting off genes of all three old age diseases, that is, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer. Most people will live longer and happier life. It raises several questions. What happens after we achieve that goal of reaching 100 years? What would be the quality of our life? By exercises and good nutrition, if the body mass is not retained, the centenarians are most likely to be fragile and weak. They need the help of caretakers to perform the daily routine. By 2050, if we increase the age of about 100 years of about a billion people, we need another billion caretakers. Will the society be happy with this achievement? I doubt it. The society is hardly likely to accept such a proposal.

To cure diseases to prolong human life, several present and future attempts are described below.

We need to make two rationale approaches: first, to identify rare allele in the genome of centenarians responsible for prolonging their lives. Once identified the allele, we need to conduct genetic engineering, that is, to cut, paste, copy, and splice the allele into the genome of volunteers to study its function. Second approach is to design drugs to shut off genes of old age to prolong life.

Next attempt to increase human life would be to prevent the loss of telomeres, the six-letter code (TTAGGG) that shorten our DNA and shorten our lifespan. During replication, each chromosome loses about 30 telomeres each year. If we prevent the loss of telomeres by using the enzyme telomerase reverse transcriptase (TRT), we could slow down the aging process. We have already demonstrated in the worm *C. elegance* that we could increase its lifespan several fold. Now, we could translate this work in human being; we could try by making a less virulent flu virus carrying TRT gene when injected to a volunteer who comes down with a mild flu. When he recovers from the flu, the TRT gene would have inserted in the entire genome of every cell in his body (we can confirm the insertion by sequencing). Suppose at each replication, only 15 telomeres are deleted instead of 30 telomeres. This person is likely to live twice as long. Also, suppose the sequencing of his genome would confirm that every cell of his body carries the TRT gene. Since the longevity treatment with the flu virus is safe, inexpensive, and would be easily available to everyone, should we provide the treatment to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth?

Such studies are likely to raise two serious ethical questions. First, we have to ask ourselves, do people have a right to live and second do we have a right to live as long as we wish, no matter how old, how weak, or how sick we are? The answer to first question is, according to the UN charter, we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is the second question which is troublesome. Do people have a right to extent their lives as long as they wish? Most people are reluctant to answer this question either No or Yes. Both answers have some support.

Those who said No have a good reason. First, they argue that there are seven and a half billion people live on planet Earth and we are adding 90 million additional people each year. According to UN estimate, by 2050, the population of the world is likely to reach 9 billion. Does our planet Earth have all resources to support such a population explosion? Can we provide food, fuel, and medicine to all the people of the world? In poor countries, millions are starving now. By extending life, we will have serious problems such as lawlessness, riots, and chaos in the streets. The current population of Earth has polluted the water, the air, and the land. Today, they wonder if the water they drink is safe, the food they eat is safe, and the air they breathe is safe. If we continue to pollute the planet with the current rate which is 110 million ton of pollutant that we release in the atmosphere each year, how much pollutants we would accumulate in the atmosphere in 10 years or in 100 years.

On the other hand, those who say Yes; we should extend life have good reasons as well. We have no Plan B to save human life on some other planet. We look up to Heaven to find another home for humanity. To search for a suitable planet for human life to survive, we need to train an army of astronauts to travel into deep

**113**

**Author details**

Abdul Hameed Khan

of Health (NIH), Bethesda, Maryland, USA

provided the original work is properly cited.

\*Address all correspondence to: hameedkhan111@comcast.net

NCMRR (National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research), National Institutes

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,

space with extended life span. They may have to travel for centuries to find a habitable planet for humans. We do not want them to die on their way to find a new home for humanity. We must continue to search for treatment to prolong human life. What if we succeed tomorrow in developing treatment of all three old age diseases to double or triple our lifespan? If we do not succeed tomorrow may be day after tomorrow. Say the treatment is safe, inexpensive, and easily available to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. Who decide that person A will receive the longevity treatment and will live and person B will not receive the same treatment and therefore will die? We need debate and discussion and come up with guidelines for our society. One person cannot provide answer to all these questions. All I want to do is to raise these questions in your mind. My aim will be fulfilled if

*The Rational Drug Design to Treat Cancers DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93325*

I have made you think along these lines.

#### *The Rational Drug Design to Treat Cancers DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93325*

*Drug Design - Novel Advances in the Omics Field and Applications*

it. The society is hardly likely to accept such a proposal.

design drugs to shut off genes of old age to prolong life.

described below.

child on the face of the Earth?

happier life. It raises several questions. What happens after we achieve that goal of reaching 100 years? What would be the quality of our life? By exercises and good nutrition, if the body mass is not retained, the centenarians are most likely to be fragile and weak. They need the help of caretakers to perform the daily routine. By 2050, if we increase the age of about 100 years of about a billion people, we need another billion caretakers. Will the society be happy with this achievement? I doubt

To cure diseases to prolong human life, several present and future attempts are

We need to make two rationale approaches: first, to identify rare allele in the genome of centenarians responsible for prolonging their lives. Once identified the allele, we need to conduct genetic engineering, that is, to cut, paste, copy, and splice the allele into the genome of volunteers to study its function. Second approach is to

Next attempt to increase human life would be to prevent the loss of telomeres, the six-letter code (TTAGGG) that shorten our DNA and shorten our lifespan. During replication, each chromosome loses about 30 telomeres each year. If we prevent the loss of telomeres by using the enzyme telomerase reverse transcriptase (TRT), we could slow down the aging process. We have already demonstrated in the worm *C. elegance* that we could increase its lifespan several fold. Now, we could translate this work in human being; we could try by making a less virulent flu virus carrying TRT gene when injected to a volunteer who comes down with a mild flu. When he recovers from the flu, the TRT gene would have inserted in the entire genome of every cell in his body (we can confirm the insertion by sequencing). Suppose at each replication, only 15 telomeres are deleted instead of 30 telomeres. This person is likely to live twice as long. Also, suppose the sequencing of his genome would confirm that every cell of his body carries the TRT gene. Since the longevity treatment with the flu virus is safe, inexpensive, and would be easily available to everyone, should we provide the treatment to every man, woman, and

Such studies are likely to raise two serious ethical questions. First, we have to ask ourselves, do people have a right to live and second do we have a right to live as long as we wish, no matter how old, how weak, or how sick we are? The answer to first question is, according to the UN charter, we all have the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. It is the second question which is troublesome. Do people have a right to extent their lives as long as they wish? Most people are reluctant to answer

Those who said No have a good reason. First, they argue that there are seven and a half billion people live on planet Earth and we are adding 90 million additional people each year. According to UN estimate, by 2050, the population of the world is likely to reach 9 billion. Does our planet Earth have all resources to support such a population explosion? Can we provide food, fuel, and medicine to all the people of the world? In poor countries, millions are starving now. By extending life, we will have serious problems such as lawlessness, riots, and chaos in the streets. The current population of Earth has polluted the water, the air, and the land. Today, they wonder if the water they drink is safe, the food they eat is safe, and the air they breathe is safe. If we continue to pollute the planet with the current rate which is 110 million ton of pollutant that we release in the atmosphere each year, how much pollutants we would accumulate in the atmosphere in 10 years or in 100 years.

On the other hand, those who say Yes; we should extend life have good reasons as well. We have no Plan B to save human life on some other planet. We look up to Heaven to find another home for humanity. To search for a suitable planet for human life to survive, we need to train an army of astronauts to travel into deep

this question either No or Yes. Both answers have some support.

**112**

space with extended life span. They may have to travel for centuries to find a habitable planet for humans. We do not want them to die on their way to find a new home for humanity. We must continue to search for treatment to prolong human life.

What if we succeed tomorrow in developing treatment of all three old age diseases to double or triple our lifespan? If we do not succeed tomorrow may be day after tomorrow. Say the treatment is safe, inexpensive, and easily available to every man, woman, and child on the face of the Earth. Who decide that person A will receive the longevity treatment and will live and person B will not receive the same treatment and therefore will die? We need debate and discussion and come up with guidelines for our society. One person cannot provide answer to all these questions. All I want to do is to raise these questions in your mind. My aim will be fulfilled if I have made you think along these lines.
