评论
打印
And in 1937, there was this Tennessee pharma startup that hit upon this idea for a new cough syrup, a cure for strep throat actually, targeted at children.
在1937年，这家田纳西州的制药公司研发出了一种新兴的咳嗽糖浆，可用来治疗链球菌性喉炎，适用于儿童使用。
At the time, there was a new drug called sulfa drugs that were kind of a forerunner of antibiotics.
当时，有一种新药叫磺胺，这种药正是抗生素的前身。
But they were generally packaged in this bulky pill format, very difficult for kids to swallow.
可那时，磺胺都只能装在大个的药丸里面，咽下这些药丸对于孩子们来说非常困难。
So a chemist at this startup came up with the brilliant idea of dissolving the sulfa drug in diethylene glycol and then adding some raspberry flavoring to make it more palatable for the kids.
因此一位化学家开始了新的尝试，他想到了一个绝妙的主意，让磺胺溶解在二甘醇里，接着再加入树莓调味剂，这让孩子们更加容易喝下口。
Seemed like a brilliant idea, except that diethylene glycol is toxic to human beings.
这看似一个绝佳的想法。然而二甘醇会产生对人体有害的毒素。
It's basically antifreeze.
它的毒性基本上和防冻剂差不多。
And so almost immediately, weeks after, there were dozens of deaths around the United States from this terrible concoction, and the crazy thing is that putting diethylene glycol in your medicine was not a problem, given the existing regulations of the day.
所以几周后，在美国，有很多的孩子因为喝了这种糟糕的调制药剂相继死亡，更让我们感到诧异的是，根据那时候的现行法规，将二甘醇和药物放在一起在当时是被允许的。
The only thing that the FDA was really interested in was whether you were actually listing the ingredients of your potion on the label.
食品及药物管理局当时唯一关注的那就是你有没有列出药剂相应的成分标签。
So if you wanted to put antifreeze in your cough syrup, go ahead, as long as you list ingredients on the label.
所以如果你想把助冻剂和咳嗽糖浆放在一起，只要你在药盒上注明就行，
That's what life was like.
生活那时就是这样。
But because of this tragedy, laws were changed.
但正是因为这场悲剧，国家修改了相应的法律。
And for the first time, the FDA mandated the pharma companies show that their drugs were not harmful to consumers, which seems kind of obvious, but somebody had to figure that out.
食品及药物管理局首次要求法尔诺德制药公司证明他们的药物对消费者无害，虽然似乎真相显而易见，但还是要有人去找答案。
And so what we needed at that point was not just kind of new miracle drugs.
在那个阶段，人们真正需要的并不仅仅是这么一款特效药。
We needed new institutions.
我们需要新的体系。
We needed new medi-innovations, like three phase trials and randomized controlled experiments, and regulatory bodies, like the FDA, to separate out the fake cures from the real thing.
我们也需要新的医疗创新，像三期试验，同时还需要进行随机对照试验，以及监察机构，例如食品及药物管理局，这些机构能帮助我们将假药和真药区分开，这种体系创新正变得愈发重要。
And that kind of institutional innovation is going to be increasingly important in the decades to come, because all around the world right now, there are well-funded scientists and serious labs that are working on tackling the problem of aging itself.
在未来的几十年里，因为在世界的各个角落，都会有一些受资助的科学家在实验室里注重于攻克这个日益严峻的难题。
I mean, currently the outer boundary of human life is somewhere around 110 and 115.
目前，人们生活的外部边界在110和115之间的某处。
It's very hard to live past that.
这要是在过去，人们是很难活下去的。
But there is serious research out there that suggests that we can just blow past that boundary and live for decades longer, maybe even indefinitely.
但一项严谨的研究表明，我是可以越过那条界限的，并活得更久，甚至永远活下去。
I'm not saying this is going to happen, but it is on the table.
我并不是说这将会发生，但已经提上日程了。
And the thing about it is, if we did do that, it would be the most momentous change in the history of our species, right?
问题是，如果我们真的做到了，这将会成为人类历史上最重大的改变，对吧？
Initially, it would intensely — increase the health inequalities in the world because people could — only rich people could afford these treatments originally.
首先，这将会极大程度上—— 导致世界健康不平等，因为最初只有富人才能付得起这些治疗的费用。
It would greatly exacerbate our runaway population growth problem and it would fundamentally alter the definition of the arc of a human life.
这将会极大程度上加剧人口失控增长的问题，它将从根本上改变人们生活轨迹的定义。
And when you ask people, do you think we should mess around with immortality, ordinary people, most of them say no.
而当你问人们，问他们是否追求永生，绝大多数的普通人都会说不。
But the problem is we don't have collectively a decision-making body that can help us wrestle with changes this immense.
但问题是，我们整体上并不具有一个能帮助我们应对如此巨大变化的决策机构。
We're like the FDA back in 1930, like, go ahead and make your immortality pill.
我们就像1930年的食品及药物管理局，寻求制造出永生药的办法。
Just make sure the ingredients are right on the label.
我们只要确认标签上的成分都正确就行。
That's where we are.
这就是我们在干的事情。
So the kinds of innovations we need are going to be on the level of oversight and decision making, and I think we can make these innovations if we if we work at it.
因此，我们所需要的创新是在监督层面上以及决策层面上的。如果我们致力于此，我认为我们可以实现创新。
Now, we all realize that regulatory overreach is a problem.
现在，我们都意识到、过度管制是存在问题的。
So we're going to have to design decision-making bodies that are both sensitive to the dangers and the unintended consequences, but also genuinely open to the possibilities.
我们必须得建立决策机构，这种决策机构会对危险和意外后果保持敏感，但也要真正接受各种可能性。
But to my mind, we should be focusing less on extending life indefinitely and more on reducing the gaps that remain in health outcomes here and around the world.
但在我看来，我们不应该过于关注如何延长寿命，而应该着重缩小世界各国在健康产出方面所存在的差距。
I mean, just look at what we've lived through in the past year and a half.
我是说，看看我们在过去一年半的时间里经历了些什么。
On average, white Americans lost one year of expected life in 2020, thanks largely to covid.
在2020年，白人的平均预期寿命相较于前年减少了一年，很大程度上都归咎于新冠疫情。
African Americans lost three years.
而美国黑人则减少了三年的寿命。
And we should be focusing on reducing the gap between what we call health span and lifespan.
我们应该着重去缩小差距，缩小我们所说的寿命之间的差距。
The amount of time that we spend that is fundamentally healthy and full capacity.
我们所花费的时间从根本上来讲，正是健康、充分的产能。
I think we all agree that these are problems that are worth solving and we have the tools at our disposal right now to solve them.
我想大家都认同我的说法：这些问题是值得解决的，而且我们现在也有解决这些问题的工具。
If the first great revolution in human health was extending the overall average human life, the second should be about closing the gaps.
如果说人类健康第一次伟大的革命是延长人类平均寿命的话，那么第二次革命则将是缩小寿命差距。
Thank you very much.
非常感谢！
