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 orcruciallyfrom
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 representa 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:
- all those who took part in our seminar in September
2004, and the Academy of Medical Sciences, which hosted it;
- those who hosted our visits to the universities
of Newcastle and York, and who provided evidence for us;
- in our visit to Washington DC, the staff of the
British Embassy who arranged and facilitated our visit, the Ellison
Medical Foundation, the National Institute on Aging, and all the
members of their staff who made us welcome and gave us so generously
of their time.
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
|