Select Committee on Science and Technology First Report


AGEING: SCIENTIFIC ASPECTS


CHAPTER 1: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1.  In June 2004 we appointed a Sub-Committee to examine the Scientific Aspects of Ageing. The matters we particularly wished to address are set out in the Call for Evidence we issued on 20 July 2004, which is set out in full in Appendix 3 to this report. We were especially interested in the biological processes of ageing, and in promising areas of research which might benefit older people and delay the onset of long-term illnesses and disabilities. We wished also to see how existing technologies, and research into new technologies, could be used to improve the quality of life of older people. In both of these fields we were anxious to see whether there was sufficient research capability in the United Kingdom, whether the correct research priorities had been identified, and how effectively research was coordinated.

1.2.  The membership of the Sub-Committee is set out in Appendix 1. The Sub-Committee received 61 pieces of written evidence, and received oral evidence from 48 persons. A Seminar was held at the start of the inquiry.[1] In addition, members of the Sub-Committee visited the universities of Newcastle and York, and the Ellison Medical Foundation and the National Institute on Aging in Washington DC.[2]

1.3.  A number of factors combined to make this an appropriate time for our inquiry: demographic changes, scientific progress, economic factors such as the cost of pensions and health care, rising expectations, and growing opportunities in an ageing world for exploiting the UK science base in ageing-related research.

1.4.  The evidence we received from academic and other scientists showed that this is, as we suspected, an enormously exciting time for fundamental biological research into the causes of ageing, and into what can be done to slow the adverse effects of the ageing process and improve the quality of life of older people. In the case of the individual diseases which predominantly affect older people, research is also showing promising avenues of development in prevention and treatment.

1.5.  It is of course always the case that such research would benefit from a greater input of funding, whether from the private sector, from charitable bodies or—crucially—from the public sector. However, quite apart from any shortage of funding, we found that research was being inhibited by two main factors which are the responsibility of the Government, and which they can and must take urgent steps to change. The first of these is the treatment of the scientific aspects of ageing as very much the junior partner in any consideration of older people. When the Government have appointed the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions as their "Champion of Older People", we regard it as disturbing that this Department chose not to submit written evidence to us. We comment on this more fully in Chapter 7.

1.6.  The second major factor inhibiting research is the extraordinary lack of coordination, in particular between the research councils. We chronicle in Chapter 8 the various different bodies which have been set up over time with the intention of providing such coordination, and how each has signally failed in this task. Advances can be made only if the coordination of research into ageing becomes an important responsibility of a major government department, headed by a minister responsible to Parliament for this.

1.7.  On the technology front the picture is different. Here, while new research could certainly lead to useful new developments, it is more the failure to apply existing technologies which we found disappointing. The technology is largely already there but, with few exceptions, it is not being applied nearly as much as it might to improve older people's quality of life. To some extent this is due to a lack of infrastructure, but largely it is the result of a failure of industry. This goes wider than the field of assistive technology: we have found a generalised failure by industry and commerce to recognise the enormous potential of the market which older people represent—a market which is already large, and which continues to grow. This is largely a matter for industry itself to resolve. A failure to do so will result in older people not benefiting from improvements to their quality of life which are there for the taking, but perhaps the chief sufferer will be UK industry itself.

1.8.  Maybe this is part of a wider problem. Old age is today still regarded in a very negative light. What concerns us is the pervasive but often unrecognised ageist attitude of the public and the media towards diseases prevalent in old age, and the ageist approach of industry to older people as consumers. We believe the Government could do more to help combat these attitudes, directly through government departments and the NHS, and indirectly by their influence on schools, industry and the media.

1.9.  Our aim in this report has been to make recommendations which may, first, help to increase the years of good health in old age, and secondly which may, if and when health does deteriorate, ensure that the quality of life is adversely affected as little as possible.

STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

1.10.  We consider first the demographic changes which must form the background to any study of the problem. We then look at why and how ageing occurs. This leads to consideration of the ageing process, of the natural degeneration of the human body and mind over time, and of those diseases which are particularly prevalent in old age. Next we look at the environmental challenges, at assistive technology, and at the failure of industry to seize the opportunity to exploit a market which is there for the taking. We then consider management by the Government of health in old age, both for the individual and for society as a whole. After this we turn to the strategic direction and coordination of ageing-related research. We end with a summary of our conclusions and recommendations.

1.11.  Some of our conclusions and recommendations to the Government relate to matters which, in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, are within the competence of the devolved administrations. To this extent, our recommendations are not directly addressed to those administrations; but insofar as many of the facts on which they are based do not respect administrative boundaries, we hope that the devolved administrations too will consider implementing our recommendations with any necessary amendments and modifications.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1.12.  We are grateful to all those who submitted written and oral evidence to the Sub-Committee, and to those who responded to their questions and submitted additional evidence. We are particularly grateful to the following persons and organisations:

1.13.  Throughout this inquiry we have been most fortunate to have as our specialist adviser Professor Thomas Kirkwood, Professor of Medicine and Co-Director of the Institute for Ageing and Health at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. His expertise in the topic has been invaluable. We are most grateful to him for his enthusiasm, his help and his guidance. Professor Kirkwood has been careful to draw to our attention his potential conflicts of interest whenever these have arisen in the course of the inquiry. We stress that the conclusions we draw and recommendations we make are ours alone.


1  
A full note of the Seminar is at Appendix 4. Back

2   A full account of our visit is at Appendix 5. Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Lords home page Parliament home page House of Commons home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2005