Raymond Pearl, smoking and longevity

Benefits and hazards of alcohol-the J-shaped curve and public health

Purpose

The purpose of this paper is a review of updated evidence of a J-shaped association between alcohol consumption and the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and all-cause mortality in relation to public health issues to create a basis for sensible individual health deliberations.

Design/methodology/approach

A review of the evidence from the first observation of a J-shaped association between a moderate alcohol intake and CHD in 1926 to recent studies of the effect of healthy lifestyles (including moderate alcohol intake) on life expectancy free of cardiovascular disease (CVD), cancer and Type 2 diabetes. An update on the biological plausibility of the J-shaped association with focus on recent findings of the association of alcohol intake and blood lipid levels.

Findings

Plausible J-shaped relations between light to moderate alcohol consumption and the risk of CHD, CVD mortality and all-cause mortality have been found in a large number of robust epidemiological studies. Among the potential mechanisms underlying the proposed protective effects are higher levels of high-density lipoprotein lacking apolipoprotein C3, reduced platelet aggregability, increased level of endothelial cell fibrinolysis, increased insulin sensitivity and decreased inflammation.

Originality/value

The existence of a J-shaped association between alcohol consumption and the risk of CHD and all-cause mortality is based on observational evidence and accordingly challenged by a degree of uncertainty leading some public health circles to state: “there is no safe level of alcohol consumption.” The authors propose that communication on the pros and cons of alcohol intake should emphasize the nadir of a J-shaped curve as a healthy range for the general population while advice regarding the consumption of alcohol should be adjusted to factor in the risks and potential benefits for each individual patient considering age, sex, family history, personal drinking history and specific medical history.

Weaving a Tapestry from Threads Spun by Geneticists: The Series Perspectives on Genetics, 1987-2008

The Perspectives column was initiated in 1987 when Jan Drake, Editor-in-Chief of GENETICS, invited Jim Crow and William Dove to serve as coeditors of "Anecdotal, Historical, and Critical Commentaries." As the series evolved over 21 years, under the guidance of Crow and Dove, the input of stories told by geneticists from many countries created a panorama of 20th-century genetics. Three recurrent themes are visible: how geneticists have created the science (as solitary investigators, in pairs, or in cooperative groups); how geneticists work hard, but find ways to have fun; and how public and private institutions have sustained the science of genetics, particularly in the United States. This article ends by considering how the Perspectives series and other communication formats can carry forward the core science of genetics from the 20th into the 21st century.

The natural biogerontology portfolio: "defeating aging" as a multi-stage ultra-grand challenge

The early days of biogerontology were blessed with an undiluted forthrightness concerning the field's ultimate goals, epitomized by its leaders. Luminaries from Pearl to Comfort to Strehler declared the desirability of eliminating aging with no more diffidence than that with which today's oncologists aver that they seek a cure for cancer. The field's subsequent retreat from this position garnered a modicum of political acceptability and public financial support, but all biogerontologists agree that this fell, and continues to fall, vastly short of the funding that the prospect of even a modest postponement of aging would logically justify. The past 20 years' discoveries of life-extending genetic manipulations in model organisms have weakened the argument that a policy of appeasement of the public's ambivalence about defeating aging is our only option; some of the biogerontologists responsible for these advances have espoused views of which our intellectual forefathers would be proud, without noticeably harming their own careers. With the recent emergence of a detailed, ambitious, but practical roadmap for the comprehensive defeat of aging, this process has moved further: our natural and most persuasive public stance is, more than ever, to reembrace the same unassailable logic that served pioneering biogerontologists perfectly well. In particular, we are in a position to explain that the disparate strands of contemporary biomedical gerontology are not in conflict, but rather that they constitute a portfolio of approaches with a range of potential efficacies and degrees of difficulty of implementation, which can save more lives together than any can save individually, and all of which thus merit intensive pursuit.