Shes currently 16 years old as of 2009 and yet still has the physical and mental capabilities of a toddler. Amazing. She does not really seem to age, could she possibly be the first person to live much longer?
Would she live forever if not for dieseases or illnesses? Is she aging but VERY SLOWLY? maybe her equivalent of a month age is our year…
Aubrey De Grey argues that by the mid century, most of us would become immortals, as we would be able to increase our lifespan, and during this increase of our lifespan we are able to further increase our lifespan even more etc as science progress rapidly…
Is there a biological distinction between aging and developing? Could she be aging at a normal rate – and barring disease or accident die in 70 - 80 years or so, but just not developing traits of a biologically mature human?
Immortality? She obviously has a genetic defect that is preventing normal development but the flip side is that this defect has crippled her mind and (apparently) many other organ systems. Being growth stunted many look baby like but it does not equal young or immortal or even healthy in this case…
The first immortal human is Henrietta Lacks. In 1951 she was diagnosed with cervical cancer. The cells cultured from her were found to be immortal; they reproduced endlessly, and thrived outside her body. To this day, scientists all over the world use her blood cells for everything from AIDS research to creating a cure for polio. Her cells are in fact so robust and so independently healthy that I’ve been told it’s not uncommon for her cells to get all over the place, often cross-contaminating samples. Henrietta Lacks will live on, aeons after the rest of the human species is dust.
According to Wikipedia, “Henrietta Lacks’ HeLa cells have been recognized as an important ongoing resource to science, research, medicine and public health. According to reporter Michael Rogers, the subsequent development of HeLa by a researcher at the hospital, helped answer the demands of 10,000 who marched for a cure to polio just a few days before. By 1954 HeLa was used by Jonas Salk to develop a vaccine for polio. As stated by reporter Van Smith in 2002 a ‘demand’ for HeLa ‘quickly rose … the cells were put into mass production and traveled around the globe- even into space, on an unmanned satellite to determine whether human tissues could survive zero gravity.’ Reporter Smith continued, ‘In the half-century since Henrietta Lacks’ death, her … cells … have continually been used for research into cancer, AIDS, the effects of radiation and toxic substances, gene mapping, and countless other scientific pursuits.’ HeLa was used to test human sensitivity to tape, glue cosmetics, and many other products.”
What was her development like in the first year or two of her life, I wonder? She does not have the development of a newborn… Did she develop from newborn to her present state at the normal rate? Did development stop abruptly, or did it gradually slow?
She’s profoundly developmentally delayed and she’s growth retarded. This is not “immortality” or any semblance thereof.
The one benefit of her severe growth issues is that it’s that much easier to care for her physically, than it would be if she were normal 12-year-old size, with the same developmental issues.
I’m not sure surviving cultures of cervical cancer counts as immortality.
As for the original girl… I don’t see any reason to link abnormal development with immortality. Development and aging are not connected. If they were, you could make everyone immortal by cutting out their pituitary gland.
Every one of those cells carries all of Henrietta Lacks’ DNA. In theory, they could clone a perfect physical copy of her from those cells today, tomorrow, or ten million years from now. From her genes’ perspective, she is certainly immortal.
On the other hand, if this girl continues to survive for centuries with the capabilities of only a young toddler, it would certainly be an amazing fact for science (in showing that it can theoretically be accomplished with humans,) but I’m not sure it would completely qualify as a person being immortal in any more real sense than the shellfish who can theoretically live forever, too, because when you’re a young toddler you’re only about half as “there” as you are when you’re an adult.
Thaw and pour out the test tube and your blood cells will die just like anyone else’s. What makes Hentrietta Lacks’ cells so special is that they survive and thrive outside her body, and that they do not age. The cells can fission indefinitely. This makes them very useful for doing medical tests, but it also means her genes have figured out they don’t need a brain and a complex body any more to survive. She hasn’t died, she’s simply transformed from a multi-cellular to a single-cellular being. And since the first amoeba which ever existed is still alive today, we can be pretty confident that Henrietta Lacks will never die.
From her gene’s perspective, they don’t really give a shit. Even from a strict gene-centrist view, genes become successful not just by being reproduced, but by being spread as widely and as successfully co-mingled with other genes as possible, thereby ensuring survival regardless of an individual organism, kin group, or even species. Of course, genes don’t actually have a perspective or motivations. This is just success from a game theory standpoint, that the ultimately optimum result is the one that is statistically most prevalent.
