Once again, the headlines are misleading. Rather than being "frozen in time" as a toddler, Brooke Greenberg is experiencing a dyscoordination of growth, with different systems maturing at different rates (at age 16, she is the size of a toddler and has her baby teeth, but her "bone age" based on skeletal development is around 10 years).

Brooke's condition remains unexplained. There are no obvious genetic abnormalities, but samples of her cells and DNA are currently being studied in the hope of finding mutations in the gene(s) affecting the aging process. However, it seems to me that Brooke's condition is more than a simple lack of aging, and it's quite possible that the aging process has nothing to do with it. There is a difference between *development* and *aging,* and Brooke's anomalies are related to the former.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Health/Story?id=7880954&page=1

From an ethical standpoint, I think it's fortunate that we don't have the technology for eternal youth at the present time. If it were available to everyone, overpopulation and its effects would be even worse than they already are; if it were withheld for a select few, the social backlash could be severe. On the other hand, preservation of youthful function throughout a normal lifespan would provide a net social benefit in terms of increased productivity and decreased medical expenses as well as higher quality of life for the individual.

If I'd had my choice, I'd have waited until my mid to late 20s to stop the clock. I was shrimpy as a kid, scrawny as a teenager, didn't stop growing until about age 23, and continued to add muscle for a few more years.

Permalink | Report