DébatDoc - Science : jusqu'où repousser la mort ? - Vidéo Dailymotion

LCP Assemblée nationale

Le transhumanisme a ses adeptes, avec l'espoir de supprimer le vieillissement et la mort. Mais aussi ses limites à la fois scientifiques et éthiques. Des centaines de personnes dans le monde ont déjà décidé de dépenser des fortunes pour être cryogénisés, en espérant, demain, se réveiller dans le futur. <br>Jusqu'où les sciences et les techniques, dans le cadre de la loi, procurent-t-elles l'espoir de repousser la mort ?<br>Jean-Pierre Gratien reçoit pour en parler, Eric Gilson, biologiste et directeur de l'Institut de recherche sur le Cancer et le vieillissement à la faculté de Nice, Jean-Marc Lemaitre, biologiste, directeur de recherche Inserm et co-directeur de l'Institut de médecine régénératrice et de biothérapie de Montpellier et Amandine Cayol, Maitresse de conférences en droit privé à l'Université de Caen.<br><br>LCP fait la part belle à l'écriture documentaire en prime time. Ce rendez-vous offre une approche différenciée des réalités politiques, économiques, sociales ou mondiales....autant de thématiques qui invitent à prolonger le documentaire à l'occasion d'un débat animé par Jean-Pierre Gratien, en présence de parlementaires, acteurs de notre société et experts.

Transcript

00:00:00 Générique

00:00:01 ...

00:00:16 -Bienvenue à tous dans "Débat doc".

00:00:18 Le transhumanisme a ses adeptes avec l'espoir de supprimer

00:00:21 le veillissement et la mort, mais aussi ses limites

00:00:24 à la fois scientifiques et éthiques.

00:00:27 La preuve avec le documentaire qui va suivre,

00:00:30 intitulé "Tuer la mort", réalisé par Thomas Licata.

00:00:34 Vous allez y apprendre, entre autres,

00:00:36 que des centaines de personnes dans le monde

00:00:39 ont déjà décidé de dépenser des fortunes

00:00:41 pour être cryogénisées, en espérant demain

00:00:44 se réveiller dans le futur.

00:00:46 Je vous laisse découvrir ce film

00:00:48 et je vous retrouverai juste après sur ce plateau,

00:00:51 en compagnie des biologistes Jean-Marc Lemaitre

00:00:54 et Éric Gilson,

00:00:55 et de la chercheuse Amandine Caillol.

00:00:58 Avec eux, nous nous demanderons

00:01:00 jusqu'où les sciences et les techniques,

00:01:02 dans le cadre de la loi, procurent l'espoir

00:01:05 de repousser la mort. Bon doc.

00:01:07 ...

00:01:25 ...

00:01:35 ...

00:01:55 ...

00:02:05 ...

00:02:16 ...

00:02:26 ...

00:02:55 ...

00:03:05 ...

00:03:15 ...

00:03:34 ...

00:03:48 ...

00:04:17 ...

00:04:27 ...

00:04:40 ...

00:04:48 ...

00:05:01 ...

00:05:14 ...

00:05:44 ...

00:05:48 ...

00:06:13 ...

00:06:42 ...

00:06:45 ...

00:07:14 ...

00:07:16 ...

00:07:17 ...

00:07:18 ...

00:07:19 ...

00:07:20 ...

00:07:22 ...

00:07:23 ...

00:07:24 ...

00:07:25 ...

00:07:26 ...

00:07:27 ...

00:07:29 ...

00:07:30 ...

00:07:31 ...

00:07:32 ...

00:07:33 ...

00:07:34 ...

00:07:36 ...

00:07:37 ...

00:07:38 ...

00:07:39 ...

00:07:40 ...

00:07:41 ...

00:07:43 ...

00:07:44 ...

00:07:45 ...

00:07:46 ...

00:07:47 ...

00:07:48 ...

00:07:50 ...

00:07:51 ...

00:07:52 ...

00:07:53 ...

00:07:55 ...

00:07:56 ...

00:07:57 ...

00:07:58 ...

00:07:59 ...

00:08:01 ...

00:08:02 ...

00:08:03 ...

00:08:04 ...

00:08:06 ...

00:08:07 ...

00:08:08 ...

00:08:09 ...

00:08:11 ...

00:08:12 ...

00:08:13 ...

00:08:14 ...

00:08:16 ...

00:08:17 ...

00:08:18 ...

00:08:19 ...

00:08:21 ...

00:08:22 ...

00:08:23 ...

00:08:24 ...

00:08:26 ...

00:08:27 ...

00:08:28 ...

00:08:29 ...

00:08:30 ...

00:08:32 ...

00:08:33 ...

00:08:34 ...

00:08:35 ...

00:08:37 ...

00:08:38 ...

00:08:39 ...

00:08:40 ...

00:08:42 ...

00:08:43 ...

00:08:44 ...

00:08:45 ...

00:08:47 ...

00:08:48 ...

00:08:49 ...

00:08:50 ...

00:08:52 ...

00:08:53 ...

00:08:54 ...

00:08:55 ...

00:08:57 ...

00:08:58 ...

00:08:59 ...

00:09:00 ...

00:09:01 ...

00:09:03 ...

00:09:04 ...

00:09:05 ...

00:09:06 ...

00:09:08 ...

00:09:09 ...

00:09:10 ...

00:09:11 ...

00:09:13 ...

00:09:14 ...

00:09:15 ...

00:09:16 ...

00:09:18 ...

00:09:19 ...

00:09:20 ...

00:09:21 ...

00:09:23 ...

00:09:24 ...

00:09:25 ...

00:09:26 ...

00:09:28 ...

00:09:29 ...

00:09:30 ...

00:09:31 ...

00:09:32 ...

00:09:34 ...

00:09:35 ...

00:09:36 ...

00:09:37 ...

00:09:39 ...

00:09:40 ...

00:09:41 ...

00:09:43 ...

00:09:44 ...

00:09:45 ...

00:09:46 ...

00:09:47 ...

00:09:49 ...

00:09:50 ...

00:09:51 ...

00:09:52 ...

00:09:54 ...

00:09:55 ...

00:09:56 ...

00:09:57 ...

00:09:59 ...

00:10:00 ...

00:10:01 ...

00:10:02 ...

00:10:03 ...

00:10:05 ...

00:10:06 ...

00:10:07 ...

00:10:08 ...

00:10:10 ...

00:10:11 ...

00:10:12 ...

00:10:13 ...

00:10:15 ...

00:10:16 ...

00:10:17 ...

00:10:32 ...

00:10:33 ...

00:11:02 ...

00:11:03 ...

00:11:30 ...

00:11:40 ...

00:11:41 ...

00:11:42 ...

00:11:43 ...

00:11:44 ...

00:11:46 ...

00:11:47 ...

00:11:48 ...

00:11:49 ...

00:11:51 ...

00:11:52 ...

00:11:53 ...

00:11:54 ...

00:11:56 ...

00:11:57 ...

00:11:58 ...

00:11:59 ...

00:12:00 ...

00:12:02 ...

00:12:03 ...

00:12:04 ...

00:12:05 ...

00:12:07 ...

00:12:08 ...

00:12:09 ...

00:12:10 ...

00:12:12 ...

00:12:13 ...

00:12:14 ...

00:12:15 ...

00:12:17 ...

00:12:18 ...

00:12:19 ...

00:12:20 ...

00:12:22 ...

00:12:23 ...

00:12:24 ...

00:12:25 ...

00:12:26 ...

00:12:28 ...

00:12:29 ...

00:12:30 ...

00:12:31 ...

00:12:33 ...

00:12:34 ...

00:12:35 ...

00:12:36 ...

00:12:38 ...

00:12:39 ...

00:12:40 ...

00:12:41 ...

00:12:43 ...

00:12:44 ...

00:12:45 ...

00:12:46 ...

00:12:48 ...

00:12:49 ...

00:12:50 ...

00:12:51 ...

00:12:53 ...

00:12:54 ...

00:12:55 ...

00:12:56 ...

00:12:58 ...

00:13:01 ...

00:13:02 ...

00:13:03 ...

00:13:04 ...

00:13:06 ...

00:13:07 ...

00:13:08 ...

00:13:09 ...

00:13:11 ...

00:13:12 ...

00:13:13 ...

00:13:14 ...

00:13:16 ...

00:13:17 ...

00:13:18 ...

00:13:19 ...

00:13:21 ...

00:13:22 ...

00:13:23 ...

00:13:24 ...

00:13:26 ...

00:13:27 ...

00:13:28 ...

00:13:29 ...

00:13:30 ...

00:13:32 ...

00:13:33 ...

00:13:34 ...

00:13:35 ...

00:13:37 ...

00:13:38 ...

00:13:39 ...

00:13:40 ...

00:13:42 ...

00:13:43 ...

00:13:44 ...

00:13:45 ...

00:13:47 ...

00:13:48 ...

00:13:49 ...

00:13:50 ...

00:13:52 ...

00:13:53 ...

00:13:54 ...

00:13:55 ...

00:13:57 ...

00:13:58 ...

00:13:59 ...

00:14:00 ...

00:14:01 ...

00:14:02 ...

00:14:03 ...

00:14:04 ...

00:14:05 ...

00:14:06 ...

00:14:07 ...

00:14:08 ...

00:14:09 ...

00:14:10 ...

00:14:11 ...

00:14:12 ...

00:14:13 ...

00:14:14 ...

00:14:15 ...

00:14:16 ...

00:14:17 ...

00:14:18 ...

00:14:19 ...

00:14:20 ...

00:14:21 ...

00:14:22 ...

00:14:23 ...

00:14:24 ...

00:14:25 ...

00:14:26 ...

00:14:27 ...

00:14:28 ...

00:14:29 ...

00:14:30 ...

00:14:31 ...

00:14:32 ...

00:14:33 ...

00:14:34 ...

00:14:35 ...

00:14:36 ...

00:14:37 ...

00:14:38 ...

00:14:39 ...

00:14:40 ...

00:14:41 ...

00:14:42 ...

00:14:43 ...

00:14:44 ...

00:14:45 ...

00:14:46 ...

00:14:48 ...

00:14:50 ...

00:14:51 ...

00:14:58 ...

00:15:00 ...

00:15:02 ...

00:15:03 ...

00:15:05 ...

00:15:06 ...

00:15:07 ...

00:15:08 ...

00:15:09 ...

00:15:11 ...

00:15:13 ...

00:15:15 ...

00:15:16 ...

00:15:18 ...

00:15:19 ...

00:15:20 ...

00:15:22 ...

00:15:24 ...

00:15:26 ...

00:15:28 ...

00:15:30 ...

00:15:32 ...

00:15:34 ...

00:15:36 ...

00:15:37 et ne pas être en vie. C'est juste un nouveau...

00:15:41 Il y a toujours la même personne, tout est le même,

00:15:47 sauf que ce n'est pas moi qui fais des choses et que je vois des choses,

00:15:53 c'est quelqu'un d'autre, donc je suis toujours en vie.

00:15:55 Quand vous serez finis, je vais éteindre les lumières.

00:15:59 D'accord. Vous avez plus de photos ?

00:16:01 Vous êtes prêts ?

00:16:04 - Oui. - D'accord.

00:16:05 D'accord.

00:16:06 Vous voyez Ray en arrière qui est en forme différemment que les autres.

00:16:12 Et nous avons des ordres pour un autre super-dour.

00:16:16 Il prend environ six mois pour faire un de ces trucs.

00:16:19 Je sais que c'est étrange que Alcor soit dans le désert,

00:16:22 mais ils l'ont fait pour plusieurs raisons.

00:16:24 Une, l'Arizona est très géologiquement stable.

00:16:26 On ne reçoit pas d'éclosions, ni d'hurricanes ni de tornados.

00:16:30 Et une autre raison, nous avons sept fabricants de nitrogène liquide

00:16:33 dans la vallée.

00:16:34 Le nitrogène est un produit très cheap,

00:16:36 il coûte 19 cents par litre,

00:16:38 c'est un produit de plus pour un autre processus.

00:16:40 C'est pour cette raison que nous avons

00:16:43 submergé le nitrogène liquide et qu'on l'a gardé à la température.

00:16:48 (bruit de la mer)

00:16:51 (bruit de la mer)

00:16:55 (bruit de la mer)

00:16:59 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:03 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:06 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:09 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:12 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:15 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:40 (bruit de la mer)

00:17:43 (musique douce)

00:17:55 (musique douce)

00:17:59 (musique douce)

00:18:03 (musique douce)

00:18:06 (musique douce)

00:18:14 (musique douce)

00:18:23 (musique douce)

00:18:26 (musique douce)

00:18:35 (musique douce)

00:18:46 (musique douce)

00:19:12 (bruit de la mer)

00:19:15 Alice!

00:19:28 Vengo!

00:19:34 Sit over there.

00:19:39 (bruit de la mer)

00:19:42 - Here you go.

00:19:55 I'll bring you some milk.

00:19:57 My mom and dad really inspired me in this sense where

00:20:00 I think that's kind of where a lot of my brain wiring comes from

00:20:04 as far as having an interest in math and science.

00:20:08 And then when I graduated from Berkeley,

00:20:11 mom and dad gave me a Apple IIci computer

00:20:15 and the only thing we could really do on the Internet,

00:20:19 because there was no World Wide Web yet,

00:20:21 was go on newsgroups.

00:20:23 But the only ones I was interested in,

00:20:26 strangely to my surprise,

00:20:28 was anything to do with physics,

00:20:31 not so much math because I didn't understand math,

00:20:36 but anything to do with technology,

00:20:39 futurism, transhumanism,

00:20:42 even cryonics, which is freezing humans.

00:20:47 And at the time I actually,

00:20:50 it was like I had this grand epiphany all at once

00:20:54 and I thought the reason we need to freeze ourselves

00:20:57 is if we go into deep space,

00:20:59 we need to get to the next star.

00:21:01 We're going to need to either have generations go by

00:21:04 by the time we get there or learn how to freeze humans.

00:21:07 So I kind of tried to instill that same excitement

00:21:12 of brain wiring into my daughter.

00:21:15 L'espèce devient complètement consciente

00:21:22 jusqu'à ce qu'elle puisse penser à elle-même

00:21:24 quand la nôtre devient complètement concentrée.

00:21:26 Quand la caméra s'est tournée tout autour

00:21:28 et a pointé exactement envers nous-mêmes,

00:21:31 nous avons créé un loop de feed-back qui a été bloqué.

00:21:34 Nous sommes dans un état d'esprit étrange et insettant dans notre histoire.

00:21:37 Nous devons prendre des étapes pour nous adhérer à la nature

00:21:40 comme nos anciens êtres-mêmes l'ont fait.

00:21:42 Mais maintenant, comme des créatures mentalement alignées,

00:21:46 nous faisons cela avec un sens de la plus grande picture,

00:21:49 une compréhension profonde du monde naturel

00:21:51 grâce à la théorie du chaos et la technologie qui les a mis en place.

00:21:55 La première question est vraiment...

00:21:58 Nous pensons à des cellules qui ont un temps de vie naturel.

00:22:02 Vous savez, ils l'appellent le "limite des haies flic".

00:22:06 Et c'est parce que les télomères,

00:22:09 qui sont les capteurs de ces chromosomes,

00:22:11 deviennent de plus en plus courts

00:22:13 et laissent les vagues de la vie.

00:22:15 Et ce que vous découvrez,

00:22:18 c'est que les cellules qui sont en train de se transformer

00:22:21 sont des cellules qui sont en train de se transformer.

00:22:24 Et ce que vous avez découvert,

00:22:26 c'est que c'est un processus reversible.

00:22:29 Ce qui est vraiment intéressant,

00:22:37 c'est que vous ne parlez pas de vivre pour toujours.

00:22:40 Vous parlez vraiment d'atteindre un vieux âge

00:22:44 qui est un vieux âge en santé,

00:22:46 libéré des maladies de vieux âge,

00:22:49 mais qui est un vieux âge en santé.

00:22:52 [Musique]

00:22:56 [Musique]

00:23:00 [Musique]

00:23:03 [Musique]

00:23:09 [Musique]

00:23:15 [Musique]

00:23:21 [Musique]

00:23:28 [Musique]

00:23:31 Je m'appelle Linda Partridge

00:23:43 et nous sommes au Max Planck Institute

00:23:46 pour la biologie de l'âge en Cologne.

00:23:49 Nous sommes intéressés à des interventions,

00:23:52 particulièrement en matière de nourriture,

00:23:55 mais aussi les systèmes moléculaires

00:23:58 dans le corps qui sensent la nourriture

00:24:01 et la façon dont ils affectent le processus de vieux âge

00:24:04 et les maladies liées au vieux âge.

00:24:06 Nous faisons aussi du travail expérimental

00:24:08 et nous sommes dans l'un des laboratoires expérimentaux

00:24:11 actuellement, avec des oiseaux, des oiseaux de fruits,

00:24:13 des drosophila et des moutons.

00:24:16 De l'aspect évolutionnaire,

00:24:20 l'âge en Cologne est vraiment bizarre

00:24:22 parce que lorsqu'un organisme ou une personne

00:24:25 s'âge, ils sont plus probables de mourir.

00:24:28 Donc individuellement, l'âge est un problème inconditionnel.

00:24:31 Mais si on regarde la nature,

00:24:33 il y a des choses qui peuvent vivre 200 ans,

00:24:36 un oiseau de poisson ou 40 ans, un chat,

00:24:39 et d'autres choses qui ne vivent que un jour.

00:24:42 C'est une caractéristique qui est présente dans la nature

00:24:44 et qui évolue, mais c'est une défaut individuelle.

00:24:47 Alors comment ça peut se produire ?

00:24:49 Il y a bien sûr beaucoup de spéculation autour de l'âge.

00:24:52 Les gens sont bien sûr intéressés à essayer

00:24:55 de rester en bonne santé au fur et à mesure de leur âge

00:24:58 et même dans certains cas,

00:25:00 de tenter d'éviter la mort tout ensemble.

00:25:02 Donc je pense que les idées que nous allons pouvoir

00:25:05 préserver les gens ou, vous savez,

00:25:08 télécharger ce software et le recréer dans le futur,

00:25:13 ce sont des choses fantastiques pour la science-fiction

00:25:15 en ce moment, mais c'est de la fiction.

00:25:17 Je pense qu'on ne voit pas,

00:25:19 dans les résultats de l'expérimentalité,

00:25:22 de ce qui va se passer dans le futur prévu.

00:25:27 Il y a eu de l'intéressante recherche récente

00:25:39 aux Etats-Unis,

00:25:41 qui, je pense, montre une grande promesse

00:25:44 pour être traducible aux humains.

00:25:47 Les expérimentations initiales étaient un peu franconaises.

00:25:52 Ce que les expérimentateurs ont fait,

00:25:55 c'est prendre des mousses,

00:25:57 qui sont habituellement des strains encore-coupés,

00:26:00 pour pouvoir rejoindre leurs suppliques sanguinaires,

00:26:04 les rejoindre ensemble,

00:26:06 sans y avoir de problème

00:26:07 avec la réaction contre la sang de l'autre mousse,

00:26:09 car ils sont tous identiques génétiquement.

00:26:12 Les expérimentateurs voulaient demander

00:26:15 si, si ils donnaient à une vieille mousse du sang jeune,

00:26:18 cela pouvait améliorer sa santé pendant l'âge.

00:26:22 Ils ont fait des expérimentations de contrôle évident.

00:26:24 Ils ont mis en place une vieille mousse à une vieille mousse,

00:26:27 une jeune mousse à une jeune mousse,

00:26:29 et ensuite, ils ont fait l'opposé,

00:26:31 de vieille à jeune,

00:26:32 et ont montré une amélioration

00:26:34 dans la santé des cellules du système.

00:26:36 Ce que cela nous dit,

00:26:38 c'est que les mauvaises choses s'accumulent dans le sang pendant l'âge,

00:26:43 pour que la vieille mousse contienne des molécules dégagées

00:26:48 ou d'autres facteurs,

00:26:49 ou qu'il y a des choses particulièrement bénéfiques dans la vieille mousse.

00:26:53 Mais de l'autre côté,

00:26:54 si elles peuvent être identifiées,

00:26:56 parce que la vieille mousse est tellement accessible,

00:26:58 il serait possible de dégager

00:27:01 les facteurs dégagés des vieilles mousses,

00:27:04 ou de les améliorer,

00:27:06 ou de rajouter des facteurs jeunes.

00:27:08 Il y a donc beaucoup d'intérêt, bien sûr, maintenant,

00:27:11 dans l'identification des molécules

00:27:13 et l'entendement de leur fonctionnement

00:27:14 sur différents types de cellules du système

00:27:16 pour améliorer leur performance pendant l'âge.

00:27:19 Il y a beaucoup de construction de mur dans la science.

00:27:22 Parfois, il y a une grande marche et une nouvelle découverte,

00:27:25 mais souvent, c'est de filer dans les blancs

00:27:27 dans une très grande mur de découverte.

00:27:32 (bruit de feu)

00:28:00 - Jessica!

00:28:01 - Oh!

00:28:02 - Jessica.

00:28:07 (rire)

00:28:12 - Comment va ton pompon, chérie?

00:28:28 - Bien.

00:28:29 - Oh!

00:28:30 C'est drôle.

00:28:32 - Oui.

00:28:33 - Je suis tellement excitée

00:28:34 que j'ai trouvé ce pompon de vaisseau de l'espace.

00:28:38 - Oui.

00:28:39 - Parce que je suis sûre que les gens

00:28:40 les ont fait pour ressembler à ça.

00:28:42 - Pour ressembler à des vaisseaux de l'espace.

00:28:47 - Je dois juste mettre des lumières

00:28:52 autour de ça.

00:28:54 Je ne sais pas si le bleu est correct,

00:28:56 mais on verra.

00:28:59 - Je pense qu'au futur,

00:29:01 on va penser plus à des aliens

00:29:04 qui sont en tâche.

00:29:06 On va ressembler à eux,

00:29:08 parce que si on est en zéro gravité,

00:29:10 on aura moins de densité des os.

00:29:12 - On aura probablement l'air

00:29:13 comme une espèce complètement différente.

00:29:15 - Parce qu'il y a moins de gravité,

00:29:17 alors ils pourraient être plus grands et plus petits.

00:29:20 Ils n'auront pas besoin de bonnes os.

00:29:23 Mais quand ils arriveront ici,

00:29:25 ils seront dans un vélo.

00:29:27 - Probablement.

00:29:29 - C'est une évolution différente

00:29:31 où ça se passe tout d'un coup.

00:29:33 Tu vas à Mars,

00:29:34 et la génération suivante,

00:29:36 les enfants sont super grands,

00:29:38 comme des légumes.

00:29:39 - Oh mon Dieu.

00:29:40 Je ne veux pas être si grand,

00:29:42 pour être honnête.

00:29:43 Tout d'abord,

00:29:44 pour construire une maison,

00:29:46 cette maison a déjà beaucoup de briques.

00:29:48 On en aurait besoin de deux fois

00:29:50 si on était si grands.

00:29:52 En fait, pour les autres aliens,

00:29:54 on est des aliens.

00:29:56 - C'est vrai.

00:29:58 Prêt?

00:29:59 3, 2, 1, go!

00:30:01 - Macaroni.

00:30:03 - Si on dit go,

00:30:08 pourquoi pas juste macaroni?

00:30:10 - Et go!

00:30:12 - Merci.

00:30:17 - Au revoir.

00:30:18 - Merci.

00:30:19 - C'est cool, Doggy.

00:30:20 - Qu'est-ce que tu penses,

00:30:21 toi aussi?

00:30:22 - Je pense que c'est cool.

00:30:23 - Tu penses qu'il a une maison?

00:30:25 - Je pense que c'est cool.

00:30:27 - Je n'aime pas l'idée de mourir.

00:30:46 Ce n'est pas que j'ai peur de mourir.

00:30:48 Je veux dire, peut-être que je le ferais.

00:30:50 Je ne sais pas.

00:30:51 Je ne le pense pas comme peur.

00:30:53 Je le pense comme...

00:30:55 Je n'aime pas l'idée

00:30:57 que les choses vont finir.

00:30:59 Ce n'est pas que...

00:31:01 Je veux dire...

00:31:03 Je suis motivée,

00:31:05 en partie,

00:31:07 parce que je sais que je vais au moins,

00:31:09 je veux dire,

00:31:11 probablement mourir à un moment donné.

00:31:13 Mais dans mon esprit, bien sûr,

00:31:15 je pense à cela en me posant.

00:31:18 Comme le dit Max Moore.

00:31:20 Je serai en besoin d'aide.

00:31:22 Et je veux être préservée.

00:31:24 Donc, je vais au cours de la vie

00:31:26 avec cet esprit.

00:31:28 Alors, laissez-moi penser.

00:31:29 Laissez-moi essayer de penser.

00:31:30 Qu'est-ce que ça serait comme

00:31:31 si je pensais vraiment que la mort

00:31:33 était ça,

00:31:34 et qu'il n'y avait rien d'autre,

00:31:36 aucune possibilité?

00:31:38 Oui, c'est déprimant.

00:31:40 Je le trouve déprimant.

00:31:42 Et je sens que,

00:31:43 même si c'est impossible,

00:31:45 d'être immortel,

00:31:47 et d'abord,

00:31:48 immortel ne veut pas dire indestructible.

00:31:50 Même les poissons

00:31:52 se fichent.

00:31:53 Ils ne sont plus immortels.

00:31:55 Donc, ça veut juste dire

00:31:57 qu'ils ne mourront pas d'âge.

00:31:59 Je sens que même si c'est impossible

00:32:01 de faire des gens immortels,

00:32:03 pourquoi ne pas

00:32:05 y penser et y penser

00:32:06 pour des vies plus longues?

00:32:08 Et bien sûr, il y a ce genre

00:32:10 de mentalité où,

00:32:12 si vous pouvez vivre

00:32:14 le plus longtemps possible,

00:32:16 alors, j'espère, à un moment donné,

00:32:18 avant que vous vous moriez,

00:32:20 quelqu'un va trouver un meilleur moyen

00:32:22 de vivre encore plus longtemps.

00:32:24 Et alors, Alcor devient plan B.

00:32:26 Mais...

00:32:29 Je pense que, pour moi,

00:32:31 je ferais juste tourner la question

00:32:33 et me demander

00:32:35 pourquoi quelqu'un serait plus heureux

00:32:37 avec la pensée de mourir

00:32:39 que la pensée de ne pas mourir.

00:32:41 Et moi, personnellement,

00:32:42 je ne comprends pas ça.

00:32:45 Je ne peux pas imaginer

00:32:47 être juste à l'aise

00:32:49 avec la pensée de mourir

00:32:51 et c'est tout.

00:32:52 Je ne peux pas imaginer.

00:32:54 Je ne peux pas imaginer.

00:32:56 (bruit de la rue)

00:32:58 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:00 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:02 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:04 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:06 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:08 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:10 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:12 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:14 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:16 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:19 (bruit de la rue)

00:33:47 (anglais)

00:33:50 (anglais)

00:33:53 (anglais)

00:33:56 (anglais)

00:33:59 (anglais)

00:34:02 (anglais)

00:34:05 (anglais)

00:34:08 (anglais)

00:34:11 (anglais)

00:34:14 (anglais)

00:34:17 (anglais)

00:34:20 (anglais)

00:34:23 (anglais)

00:34:26 (anglais)

00:34:29 (anglais)

00:34:32 (anglais)

00:34:35 (anglais)

00:34:38 (anglais)

00:34:41 (anglais)

00:34:44 (anglais)

00:34:47 (anglais)

00:34:50 (anglais)

00:34:53 (anglais)

00:34:56 (anglais)

00:34:59 (anglais)

00:35:02 (anglais)

00:35:05 (anglais)

00:35:08 (anglais)

00:35:11 (anglais)

00:35:14 (anglais)

00:35:17 (anglais)

00:35:20 (anglais)

00:35:23 (anglais)

00:35:26 (anglais)

00:35:29 (anglais)

00:35:32 (anglais)

00:35:35 (anglais)

00:35:38 (anglais)

00:35:40 (anglais)

00:35:43 (anglais)

00:35:46 (anglais)

00:35:49 (anglais)

00:35:52 (anglais)

00:35:55 (anglais)

00:35:58 (anglais)

00:36:01 (anglais)

00:36:03 (anglais)

00:36:06 (anglais)

00:36:09 (anglais)

00:36:12 (anglais)

00:36:15 (anglais)

00:36:18 (anglais)

00:36:21 (anglais)

00:36:23 (anglais)

00:36:25 (anglais)

00:36:27 (anglais)

00:36:29 (anglais)

00:36:32 (anglais)

00:36:34 (anglais)

00:36:37 (anglais)

00:36:40 (anglais)

00:36:43 (anglais)

00:36:46 (anglais)

00:36:49 (anglais)

00:36:52 (cris)

00:36:54 (anglais)

00:36:57 (anglais)

00:36:59 (anglais)

00:37:02 (anglais)

00:37:04 (anglais)

00:37:07 (anglais)

00:37:09 (anglais)

00:37:12 (anglais)

00:37:15 (anglais)

00:37:18 (anglais)

00:37:21 (anglais)

00:37:24 (anglais)

00:37:27 (anglais)

00:37:30 (anglais)

00:37:34 (anglais)

00:37:36 (anglais)

00:37:39 (anglais)

00:37:41 (anglais)

00:37:44 (anglais)

00:37:47 (anglais)

00:37:50 (anglais)

00:37:53 (anglais)

00:37:56 (anglais)

00:37:59 (anglais)

00:38:02 (anglais)

00:38:07 (anglais)

00:38:09 (anglais)

00:38:12 (anglais)

00:38:15 (anglais)

00:38:18 (anglais)

00:38:21 (anglais)

00:38:23 (anglais)

00:38:26 (anglais)

00:38:29 (anglais)

00:38:32 (anglais)

00:38:35 Je ne suis pas la même personne que je suis allé.

00:38:38 J'aimerais voir le futur.

00:38:42 Mais pourquoi me donner la liberté?

00:38:47 Avec curiosité,

00:38:51 c'est le moteur qui me fait vouloir rester ici,

00:38:55 pour toujours.

00:38:57 Voici le futur.

00:39:04 Venez.

00:39:05 Salut, grand-mère.

00:39:09 Salut.

00:39:11 Je t'aime.

00:39:15 Je t'aime.

00:39:18 (clics)

00:39:19 (clics)

00:39:22 (clics)

00:39:25 (clics)

00:39:28 (clics)

00:39:31 Nous sommes ici,

00:39:38 en institut de recherche en biologie,

00:39:42 en sciences de la vie.

00:39:45 Et notamment, la recherche du vieillissement,

00:39:48 des causes du vieillissement, de la chimie du vieillissement,

00:39:52 et des conséquences du vieillissement,

00:39:55 qui impliquent les maladies et, finalement, la mort.

00:39:59 Où on en est, après...

00:40:05 dizaines d'années de recherche assez intensive?

00:40:09 On est toujours dans cette...

00:40:13 dans ce manque de...

00:40:15 de la connaissance sur la...

00:40:21 sur la racine de la cause du vieillissement,

00:40:26 par laquelle on peut comprendre toutes les...

00:40:30 nombreuses manifestations du vieillissement.

00:40:34 Toutes ces maladies incurables qui nous tuent,

00:40:42 il y en a des centaines, environ 200,

00:40:45 qui dépendent tous d'un horloge biologique,

00:40:49 horloge du cancer et horloge de la longévité

00:40:53 en directe relation,

00:40:56 et l'hypothèse la plus simple, c'est qu'il y a une cause commune.

00:41:01 Mon approche est... allons chercher la cause commune.

00:41:05 Si on la trouve,

00:41:07 ce serait extrêmement important,

00:41:11 si il y en a une et commune

00:41:13 à toutes les maladies malignes, dégénératives, etc.,

00:41:17 il suffit de considérer cette cause comme un biomarqueur,

00:41:22 de la supprimer,

00:41:26 au moins la première conséquence de la supprimer,

00:41:30 et à ce moment-là, il serait plus simple

00:41:34 de prévenir toutes les maladies d'un coup

00:41:39 qu'une seule isolée.

00:41:41 On a déjà parlé, l'exemple dans la population humaine,

00:41:45 ce sont les centenaires,

00:41:48 qui typiquement ne souffrent d'aucune de ces centaines de maladies.

00:41:53 Et donc, les centenaires, c'est la source de mon optimisme,

00:41:59 qu'on pourra vivre jusqu'à 120 ans,

00:42:07 presque tout le monde,

00:42:09 mais ça ne veut pas dire que cette limite est immuable,

00:42:13 mais il faut modifier génétiquement l'homme

00:42:16 pour qu'il vive au-delà de 120 ans.

00:42:19 Alors, on cherche pour les humains,

00:42:24 parce que ce n'est pas évident de modifier génétiquement

00:42:28 la lignée germinale humaine, c'est même interdit,

00:42:32 pour le moment, il faut changer le potentiel de vie.

00:42:36 Probablement le métabolisme.

00:42:38 Et ça, je n'anticipe pas, certainement,

00:42:42 je ne vivrai pas le temps de voir ces recherches

00:42:49 sur la modification génétique humaine.

00:42:52 Donc, nous soyons modestes

00:42:57 et voir comment réduire au maximum,

00:43:04 mieux éliminer les sources principales de la souffrance humaine.

00:43:09 La majorité des gens n'ont pas tellement de problèmes

00:43:14 avec le fait qu'ils ne seront pas éternels, qu'ils vont mourir.

00:43:18 Ils savent qu'ils vont mourir.

00:43:20 Ils ont peur de la façon dont ils vont mourir.

00:43:24 Est-ce que ça sera à cause du cancer, du Alzheimer, de la démence, etc.

00:43:29 Ils ont peur de ça.

00:43:32 Il y a 4 personnes sur 10 000 qui n'ont pas ce problème.

00:43:36 Ce sont des centenaires.

00:43:38 Notre projet, entre guillemets, modeste,

00:43:41 c'est d'éliminer la source de souffrance à cause des maladies

00:43:49 et que les gens vivent jusqu'au bout

00:43:54 sans avoir peur de la souffrance liée à la cause de la mort.

00:44:01 La cause de la mort.

00:44:04 Le problème de la souffrance humaine

00:44:09 La souffrance humaine

00:44:13 Comment savez-vous que vous n'êtes pas dans la matrice ?

00:44:15 Vous ne vivez pas dans ce géant de simulation.

00:44:18 Comment savez-vous de l'extérieur ?

00:44:20 Et puis, comment savez-vous qu'on n'est pas dans l'extérieur ?

00:44:23 Je prends sérieusement la possibilité que le monde où nous vivons

00:44:27 soit en fait une simulation.

00:44:29 La technologie de simulation s'améliore tout le temps.

00:44:31 Il y a deux types de technologies de simulation.

00:44:36 La technologie de simulation

00:44:39 Est-ce pas bizarre si vous faites aussi ça ?

00:44:49 J'espère que vous le faites.

00:44:51 Mais je vous laisse attendre jusqu'à votre 18e et vous le réalisez.

00:44:54 Et puis, qu'est-ce si ils nous révivent tous en même temps ?

00:45:00 Est-ce cool ou super cringy ?

00:45:04 Je ne sais pas.

00:45:05 Ok, voici la chose.

00:45:15 Les plantes sur Terre survivent parce qu'elles sont habituées à 24 heures du jour et de nuit.

00:45:20 Mars est pareil que la Terre.

00:45:22 C'est juste plus d'une heure 40.

00:45:24 Ah oui, les gens devraient le remarquer.

00:45:26 Pas principalement parce qu'on a le temps d'aller se coucher dans la matinée,

00:45:32 mais parce que les plantes se produisent.

00:45:34 Et parce qu'on en a plus habitué.

00:45:37 Oui, on en a plus habitué.

00:45:39 Je suis certain que, d'après notre descente,

00:45:42 nos cerveaux savent automatiquement combien de temps de sommeil il faut dormir.

00:45:47 Pas exactement, mais quand.

00:45:50 Et ils ont une estimation, non pas une estimation, mais une idée.

00:45:55 Ils savent.

00:45:57 Allons au dessus de la colline.

00:45:59 Oui.

00:46:01 Oh, ça a l'air beau.

00:46:02 Oui.

00:46:04 Enfin, le moon est arrivé.

00:46:06 Enfin.

00:46:08 Enfin.

00:46:10 On peut crier au moon.

00:46:12 Oui, c'est vraiment beau.

00:46:16 Bon, je pense que c'est le moment de dormir pour l'école.

00:46:30 On va à l'école la semaine prochaine.

00:46:31 Sous-titrage ST' 501

00:46:33 *Musique*

00:46:36 *Musique*

00:46:39 *Musique*

00:46:41 *Musique*

00:46:43 *Musique*

00:46:45 *Musique*

00:46:47 *Musique*

00:46:49 *Musique*

00:46:51 *Musique*

00:46:53 *Musique*

00:46:55 *Musique*

00:46:57 *Musique*

00:46:59 *Musique*

00:47:01 *Musique*

00:47:03 *Musique*

00:47:05 *Musique*

00:47:07 *Musique*

00:47:09 *Musique*

00:47:12 *Musique*

00:47:13 *Musique*

00:47:15 *Musique*

00:47:17 *Musique*

00:47:19 *Musique*

00:47:21 *Musique*

00:47:23 *Musique*

00:47:25 *Musique*

00:47:27 *Musique*

00:47:29 *Musique*

00:47:31 *Musique*

00:47:34 *Musique*

00:47:42 *Musique*

00:47:44 *Musique*

00:47:46 *Musique*

00:47:48 *Musique*

00:47:50 *Musique*

00:47:52 *Musique*

00:47:54 *Musique*

00:47:56 *Musique*

00:47:58 *Musique*

00:48:00 *Musique*

00:48:03 *Musique*

00:48:04 *Musique*

00:48:06 *Musique*

00:48:08 *Musique*

00:48:10 *Musique*

00:48:12 *Musique*

00:48:14 *Musique*

00:48:16 *Musique*

00:48:18 *Musique*

00:48:20 *Musique*

00:48:22 *Musique*

00:48:24 *Musique*

00:48:26 *Musique*

00:48:28 *Musique*

00:48:32 *Musique*

00:48:33 *Musique*

00:48:35 *Musique*

00:48:37 *Musique*

00:48:39 *Musique*

00:48:41 *Musique*

00:48:43 *Musique*

00:48:45 *Musique*

00:48:47 *Musique*

00:48:49 *Musique*

00:48:51 *Musique*

00:48:53 *Musique*

00:48:55 *Musique*

00:48:57 *Musique*

00:49:00 *Musique*

00:49:01 *Musique*

00:49:03 *Musique*

00:49:05 *Musique*

00:49:07 *Musique*

00:49:09 *Musique*

00:49:11 *Musique*

00:49:13 *Musique*

00:49:15 *Musique*

00:49:17 *Musique*

00:49:19 *Musique*

00:49:21 *Musique*

00:49:23 *Musique*

00:49:25 *Musique*

00:49:29 *Musique*

00:49:30 *Musique*

00:49:32 *Musique*

00:49:34 *Musique*

00:49:36 *Musique*

00:49:38 *Musique*

00:49:40 *Musique*

00:49:42 *Musique*

00:49:44 *Musique*

00:49:46 *Musique*

00:49:48 *Musique*

00:49:50 *Musique*

00:49:52 *Musique*

00:49:54 *Musique*

00:49:57 *Musique*

00:49:58 *Musique*

00:50:00 *Musique*

00:50:02 *Musique*

00:50:04 *Musique*

00:50:06 *Musique*

00:50:08 *Musique*

00:50:10 *Musique*

00:50:12 *Musique*

00:50:14 *Musique*

00:50:16 *Musique*

00:50:18 *Musique*

00:50:20 *Musique*

00:50:22 *Musique*

00:50:26 *Musique*

00:50:27 *Musique*

00:50:29 *Musique*

00:50:31 *Musique*

00:50:33 *Musique*

00:50:35 *Musique*

00:50:37 *Musique*

00:50:39 *Musique*

00:50:41 *Musique*

00:50:43 *Musique*

00:50:45 *Musique*

00:50:47 *Musique*

00:50:49 *Musique*

00:50:51 *Musique*

00:50:54 *Musique*

00:50:55 *Musique*

00:50:57 *Musique*

00:50:59 *Musique*

00:51:01 *Musique*

00:51:03 *Musique*

00:51:05 *Musique*

00:51:07 *Musique*

00:51:09 *Musique*

00:51:11 *Musique*

00:51:13 *Musique*

00:51:15 *Musique*

00:51:17 *Musique*

00:51:19 *Musique*

00:51:22 *Musique*

00:51:23 *Musique*

00:51:25 *Musique*

00:51:27 *Musique*

00:51:29 *Musique*

00:51:31 *Musique*

00:51:33 *Musique*

00:51:35 *Musique*

00:51:37 *Musique*

00:51:39 *Musique*

00:51:41 *Musique*

00:51:43 *Musique*

00:51:45 *Musique*

00:51:47 *Musique*

00:51:50 *Musique*

00:51:51 *Musique*

00:51:53 *Musique*

00:51:55 *Musique*

00:51:57 *Musique*

00:51:59 *Musique*

00:52:01 *Musique*

00:52:02 *Musique*

00:52:04 *Musique*

00:52:06 *Musique*

00:52:08 *Musique*

00:52:10 *Musique*

00:52:12 *Musique*

00:52:14 *Musique*

00:52:16 *Musique*

00:52:19 - "Tell you one", that has to do with the way in which one can distinguish between presenile dementia and senile dementia.

00:52:38 - Presenile dementia is when a gentleman leaves the lavatory and forgets to zip himself up.

00:52:54 - Senile dementia is when a gentleman enters the lavatory and forgets to zip his zipper down.

00:53:11 - Not funny.

00:53:21 - There's another one. There are three early signs of aging in humans.

00:53:30 - The first sign is the loss of short-term memory.

00:53:36 - And I don't remember the other two.

00:53:42 - The second sign is the loss of memory.

00:53:48 - And the third sign is the loss of memory.

00:53:55 - Transhumanism has its followers, with the hope of suppressing aging and death, but also its limits, both scientific and ethical.

00:54:17 - We are now going to debate with our guests on this debate-doc panel. First, Eric Gilson, welcome.

00:54:25 - You are a biologist, director of the Institute for Cancer Research and Aging at the Faculty of Nice.

00:54:31 - You work more specifically on senescence, which is a physiological process that causes a slow degradation of the function of the cell, which is the origin of the aging of organisms.

00:54:45 - Jean-Marc Lemaitre is also with us.

00:54:49 - Welcome, you are a biologist, director of the Institute for Cancer Research and Aging at the Institut de Médecine Régénératrice et de Biothérapie de Montpellier.

00:54:58 - Your book is called "Healing Aging". It was published in the Human Sciences edition.

00:55:03 - It's a bit provocative title, you say, in an interview published in Le Point. My ambition is to make it clear that aging is probably a disease, you say, in this interview of Le Point which dates from last fall.

00:55:17 - We will come back to this in a moment.

00:55:20 - Amandine Caillol is also with us.

00:55:22 - Welcome, you are a lecturer in private law at the University of Caen.

00:55:27 - And you co-directed with Émilie Gaillard a report "Transhumanism and Law" for the Institute for Studies and Research on Law and Justice.

00:55:42 - We will come back to the whole of this documentary. You will tell us, in passing, what you thought of this documentary and the treatment of the limits of transhumanism,

00:55:52 - since it is the one of Slade who questions them in this film, with scientific and ethical answers.

00:55:58 - Cryogenization. This phenomenon seems to be spreading, especially in the United States.

00:56:04 - 300 people in the world today would have chosen to freeze their bodies and sometimes their brains.

00:56:11 - We learned all this in this film, hoping to relive in the future.

00:56:16 - This is very impressive, it is almost like science fiction. I would like us to make a first point on this phenomenon of cryogenization,

00:56:26 - which we see appearing in the United States, in this clinic that we visited with the director of this film.

00:56:33 - Is it necessary to believe in it? Are there scientific studies that attest that tomorrow, if we get cryogenized, we can hope to return to life in the future?

00:56:43 - From a purely scientific point of view, there is nothing that allows us to do so.

00:56:49 - This was said very well in the film. - It is said in the film.

00:56:53 - For one of the scientists, it can be done.

00:56:57 - Now it is also true that currently, in laboratories, we can freeze embryos, mice for example, and then bring them back to life.

00:57:06 - By specific procedures, it is much simpler. Can this be applied to humans?

00:57:13 - There is a gap of knowledge that prevents us from saying so.

00:57:18 - My impression of the film is that we are selling dreams, more than a scientific reality.

00:57:25 - And we sell dreams to lucky people, since we learn in this film that we have to count $ 200,000 for example for a cryogenization.

00:57:35 - What do you think? Even with your colleague?

00:57:39 - You should never say never, of course, in science.

00:57:43 - But indeed, today, there is no scientific evidence that allows us to say that in the future, we can bring back to life people who have been frozen.

00:57:54 - Now, we can see in this report that it is really a hope, and that is what is sold.

00:58:01 - It is hope, there is nothing very scientific.

00:58:05 - On sees that we take precautions, that is to say that before freezing people, we freeze them at very high temperatures, which we do a little for the cells.

00:58:14 - To bring them back to life, we have to freeze them at very low temperatures, quickly.

00:58:20 - At least -190 ° C, that's what they tell us in this film.

00:58:24 - We can also do it for embryos, as Mr. Gilson just said.

00:58:29 - But beyond, some tissues, we can do it, but beyond, for the moment, no real mammalian organism has been frozen.

00:58:40 - There are small organisms that can be, but nothing more. So indeed, it is selling a hope.

00:58:49 - What is possible to do today in the context of the law? In France, it is forbidden?

00:58:56 - In France, it is clearly forbidden, indeed, the only possibilities concerning the corpse, it is cremation or inhumation, and possibly the gift of the body to science as well.

00:59:05 - Anyway, it was clearly decided by the Council of State. We had a famous case, Martino in 2006, a doctor who had frozen his wife and who then wanted to be frozen too.

00:59:16 - And the Council of State has indicated that it was not possible to use cryogenization, body freezing.

00:59:23 - It is formally forbidden in France. And we had also, still in 2006, a question to the government that had been asked on this question.

00:59:30 - We had asked ourselves, the question was to know if we bury the question of cryogenization, could it not end up in inhumation?

00:59:38 - And clearly, the answer was no, it does not correspond to the modalities provided by the law, knowing that the government's response had insisted on the fact that we,

00:59:47 the goal is also that the bodies disappear, and especially for reasons of public health and also of place in funeral concessions, which would not allow cryogenization.

00:59:57 So in France, it is clearly forbidden, for the moment anyway.

01:00:00 - So where is it allowed? In the United States, we understood? In Switzerland? Since there, we start this documentary with a Swiss company?

01:00:08 - So in reality, there are other places in the world where it is forbidden, for example in some provinces of Canada.

01:00:13 And elsewhere, there is generally no express authorization, there is no law that authorizes cryogenization,

01:00:19 but we have a certain form of tolerance in many states, so indeed the United States, Switzerland,

01:00:24 where the company which was visited in the documentary, so on the fact that they had opinions on which for them in Switzerland,

01:00:31 it could just enter in the body's name, so we could give the body to science or give the body to foundations,

01:00:37 cryogenization companies to make it cryogenize.

01:00:40 But in practice, cryogenization institutes, there are quite a few in the world.

01:00:44 Since the 1970s, we have two in the United States, Alcor, which you visited in the debate, in the documentary, and then the Cryonics Institute.

01:00:51 Then there was an institute in Russia, Cryorus, and then we see, on the other hand, that it is still a dream that tends to develop,

01:00:57 since in recent years, we have had a new institute in China, one in Australia, and then, last but not least, in Switzerland,

01:01:03 the first European institute. So it's a dream, indeed, but a dream that still tends to be more and more shared by our fellow citizens.

01:01:12 - And then, maybe one last thing, maybe one last indication in relation to everything that was the first part of this film,

01:01:17 some or some want to see their brain only cryogenized, what is the scientific interest that this could have in the future,

01:01:26 precisely?

01:01:28 - I think that the way it was said during the film, the idea is to keep our memory, our identity, finally, personal,

01:01:35 our consciousness, in the same way, of what we have experienced, which is certainly, in theory, partly true.

01:01:42 It is true that the brain... The question I asked myself when I watched the film, and to which I have no answer, but it is a real question,

01:01:50 is to know if, in the end, all our memory, as we conceive it, our consciousness, ultimately, resides only in the brain.

01:01:58 So, certainly, in large part, but is it only in the brain? I think it's a question that remains open.

01:02:05 - Do you have anything more to say than what your colleague just said, or not?

01:02:09 - Yes, in fact, by watching the film, we can see the cooling of the body, the weight it can take, etc.

01:02:16 When we know that when we stay three minutes without oxygen, in anoxy, we have irreversible sequels at the brain level,

01:02:25 we can still ask ourselves the question of the foundation of this strategy.

01:02:30 - We will see an excerpt from the documentary, it concerns the limits of science, and it is Judith Campisi,

01:02:37 who is one of your American consorts, who is a biochemist and biologist, who speaks.

01:02:42 - No one has come across any way to take a complex species, like a mouse or a human, and make it really live substantially longer.

01:02:55 It can be done with simple, simple organisms, like the little worms, C. elegans, but it really cannot be done in complicated organisms like mice or people.

01:03:07 - This difficulty, this observation, we cannot push life back in a very significant way with today's scientific data that we have,

01:03:16 if I summarize what your consort just told us.

01:03:19 This is the basic observation, today there is a limit.

01:03:22 Mrs. Calment was 122 years old, and to believe what I read here or there on the subject, beyond 115 years, between 115 and 120 years,

01:03:30 we consider today that this is the limit where we can push back aging in the current state of science knowledge.

01:03:35 Is this a basis on which everyone can be more or less in agreement, on the part of scientists?

01:03:40 - Yes, I think we need to bring some nuance.

01:03:42 First, in the words you brought up by Judith Campisi, there are still two aspects.

01:03:47 There is both the maximum longevity and also the state of health.

01:03:51 The longevity part, in mice it is three years, in us it is about 120 years.

01:03:56 It seems to be a limit for the moment that we have not overcome.

01:04:02 In mice, it may be a little more than what Judith Campisi said, but not in a spectacular way.

01:04:08 The other question, and I think it's not my specialty, but I read a lot of writings by demographers who work on these questions.

01:04:19 The problem is that people who live very, very long, the super centenarians, as they are called, there are very few.

01:04:25 So it's very, very difficult to do statistics to know if we're going to go from 120, 122, 123 by increasing the number of centenarians.

01:04:35 It's still a debate that remains open.

01:04:38 - It is said somewhere that centenarians may be a no-brainer for you researchers, you biologists, for work on aging.

01:04:45 Is this an opinion that you share?

01:04:47 - Yes, besides, it was very well presented by Miroslav Randman in the documentary.

01:04:52 People who live longer than 100 years are often people who have never been sick or almost.

01:04:59 And so they're probably very robust people on whom, well, maybe there are a number of markers, very specific things that we can look for.

01:05:09 And so there's a whole range of research that works on centenarians, super centenarians, to try to see what are the determinants that make these people live longer than most people.

01:05:20 - What are the questions that are legally raised?

01:05:24 What is the framework in which our two guests, for example, present on this set, the legislative framework, the ethical framework today?

01:05:33 What are the questions that raise research on aging today?

01:05:38 - We have a framework for everything that is genetic modification research.

01:05:44 Where there are limits, since from 1994, the first bioethical laws, we made a distinction between genetic modifications that are not transmissible to the offspring,

01:05:55 which does not pose too many problems, we will say, ethically and therefore legally,

01:05:59 and then the transmissible genetic modifications, unlike the offspring, which are clearly prescribed in France.

01:06:05 So even today, we have a principle of respect for the integrity of the human species, and so these genetic modifications on the embryo must, on the one hand, respond to a particular purpose,

01:06:17 whether a purpose of predictive or therapeutic prognosis, and on the other hand, must never be transmitted to the offspring.

01:06:27 But what is a bit paradoxical is that we cannot have genetically modified children born in France, it is absolutely impossible.

01:06:34 But as I said, paradoxically, in order not to be late on the research, we allow more and more permissive research on the embryo,

01:06:45 on the condition of then destroying these embryos that will have been genetically modified.

01:06:50 - The legislative framework for France are the bioethical laws, they are revised and can be revised regularly, it is even what the law imposes.

01:06:57 The first was in 1994, you mentioned it, then 2004, 2011 and 2021. During this period, we have seen notable evolutions in the framework in which research in the field that interests us today is allowed.

01:07:12 - So yes, all that is research on the embryo, for once, as I said, we really have an evolution, an increasingly greater acceptability.

01:07:18 So 1994, it is a principle of banning research on the embryo, very clearly. 2004, there, we still have the principle of banning, but with temporary derogations.

01:07:29 In 2011, same rule, principle of banning derogations that become permanent. And in 2013, we have a law that intervenes only on this point.

01:07:38 So it's not a big bioethical law, but 2013, for research on the embryo, it is very important, because we have a complete paradigm shift, we reverse the principle.

01:07:45 The principle becomes the authorization if certain conditions are met. And in 2021, we stay on the same idea, but the conditions have been softened.

01:07:55 In particular, until then, in the conditions, it was necessary a medical purpose, and now there is no longer a need for a medical purpose, it is enough to increase knowledge on human biology.

01:08:05 It's still much wider than a medical purpose. And another change in 2021, so researchers can better explain to me what it changes in practice for them.

01:08:13 Until then, we had only regulated research on the embryo in general, which therefore submitted to authorization.

01:08:19 And in 2021, we have dissociated another type of research, research on pluripotent cells, so in particular embryonic stem cells and induced pluripotent cells, which there is only subject to a simple statement.

01:08:33 So these are researches that are much easier to carry out, because they would pose less ethical problems.

01:08:40 - So in this context, as it is, you have chosen to push research in the field of senescence, which I mentioned earlier, a physiological process that leads to a slow degradation of cell functions.

01:08:55 And you try to stimulate the immune system to fight this phenomenon. Explain to us, very simply, for all those who are watching us, what is the meaning of your research today,

01:09:09 what you can hope to work positively on aging and life extension?

01:09:16 - I think that most laboratories in the world, including mine and Jean-Marc's, which work on aging, work on understanding a cause that is common to all the effects of aging, including the diseases that are linked.

01:09:38 The cause that is best established now, which does not mean that it is the only cause, but the best established is precisely the senescence of cells.

01:09:47 And that dates from 1960, to be very precise. Before 1960, we thought that cells were immortal. So that means that if we age, it's not because of our cells.

01:10:00 But it's been like that since 1960, and that's where I found the film very moving, in a way. In the end, we end the film with Leonardo Da Flic, who is the Californian who, in 1960, contrary to the dogma of the time,

01:10:14 discovered that these cells were not immortal, they were mortal, so he went into senescence, that's the term he used. And so I found it really moving to see him in his juice of the Sequoia forest, it was very interesting.

01:10:33 So we had to wait from 1960 until very recently to show that it was indeed the accumulation of these senescent cells that determined, in part, the normal aging, and also the diseases that are favored by this aging process.

01:10:54 - So you are looking for a way to... - How to deal with these senescent cells, how to deal with them. And what is really complicated is that, in fact, these senescent cells are not as harmful as that.

01:11:07 And we cut ourselves, we repair our skin, we make senescent cells in a very transient way. Even during our embryogenesis, there is a moment when we make senescent cells.

01:11:18 And these senescent cells protect us against cancer. So how to disassociate all these mechanisms to find the right direction, the right balance, I would say, between all these functions of senescent cells to age in good health but without causing cancer,

01:11:32 I think that's really what we call a bottleneck, it's really a limiting step, even, I would say, a conceptually limiting step in our field.

01:11:43 - You almost assume that aging is a disease. - So, yes... - So we have to explain that.

01:11:50 - So, I'll explain it to you. It's that, in fact, the research on aging, as Eric said, has progressed a lot. We are understanding how we age.

01:12:05 In any case, one of the important steps is senescence, but it's not the only one. We know that we can identify how our cells age with a certain number of marks.

01:12:18 There was a consensus of different researchers who sat around the table to say, "If we have these marks, it's because our cells are aging."

01:12:28 But in the end, if we age, it's because our cells are aging. So in one case, they will go back to their births because, indeed, they are damaged, they are stressed,

01:12:37 they will have to try to repair something, and then sometimes they repair and then they continue, but they continue while keeping traces.

01:12:46 And when they keep traces, I would say that our cells, which are programmed during development, well, little by little, they deprogram.

01:12:55 And here, it's a cell that ages. So, in fact, in our tissues, over time, we have two types of cells.

01:13:00 The senescent cells, which tend to accumulate, and the other cells that are not senescent but that age and function much less well.

01:13:06 - On the principle of trying to find a common cause for such diseases as cancer, a degenerative disease that actually causes a lot of deaths today in France,

01:13:17 there is a kind of scientific consensus on this too, there would be a common cause for this type of... Yes, that's the very principle of your approach.

01:13:25 - Precisely, these two aging marks, we find them in all pathologies related to age.

01:13:31 And besides, if we target these marks, that is to say that we destroy the senescent cells, well, we still go to these animals.

01:13:38 And here, I'm going to add a little to what Judith Campisi said, it's that we still gain between 25 and 30% more life in good health on animal models.

01:13:48 If we reprogram the cells of these deprogrammed cells, same thing.

01:13:53 - Wait, reprogramming cells, here, aren't we entering a field, precisely, ethical, problematic, for example?

01:13:59 I would like to understand what we mean by reprogramming cells, because you seem to have obtained a number of results in this area in your laboratory.

01:14:06 Reprogramming cells, we are on a field...

01:14:10 - There, it's a somatic modification.

01:14:13 - Yes, it's not a genetic modification.

01:14:16 We can reprogram cells simply by activating a certain number of genes, but without having any genetic traces added.

01:14:26 - Perfect, it's more understandable like that.

01:14:28 - Yes, no, I think that, unfortunately, there is a type of cell that has reprogrammed very well, it's the pre-cancerous cells and the cancerous cells.

01:14:39 That's exactly what they do, and the problem, beyond this observation of mechanisms,

01:14:47 because we could very well imagine that we are able to dissociate, finally, this effect of cancerous reprogramming and reprogramming, I was going to say beneficial.

01:14:57 Why not? We are not there yet, but why not?

01:15:00 The problem that arises is how to demonstrate it to apply it to humans.

01:15:05 A mouse lives three years, okay? It does not have time to have cancer.

01:15:09 That means that all the studies that are done on mice have this limit, I was going to say, practically.

01:15:15 So, I, personally, I would be extremely wary of reprogramming my cells,

01:15:21 even if mice, I am shown that they live without cancer, simply because it is not the right model.

01:15:29 That is to say that it is not the right model for human applicability.

01:15:33 It is an excellent model to understand mechanisms, but for human applicability, for aging, it is extremely complicated,

01:15:40 because they do not live long, they do not have time to have cancer, and in addition, they have what are called extremely different aging trajectories.

01:15:46 They age very, very quickly. We age much more slowly, even if the reproduction periods, the number of children we have,

01:15:53 these are parameters that are taken into account and we are really very far.

01:15:57 And it is true that if there is a consensus in the community to say, as Miro Radman said,

01:16:02 that we will have the cause first and then we will be able to slow down aging, in my opinion, I work on it,

01:16:08 so it is exciting from a point of view, I was going to say, of the understanding of biological mechanisms.

01:16:13 In my opinion, contrary to what we hear very often, human applicability, we are very far from it.

01:16:18 In any case, there seems to be a future in this area, which would explain, of course, that GAFAM is very interested in the work on aging thanks to big data.

01:16:28 It is almost a base on the personal health data that GAFAM does today.

01:16:33 So there too, in Europe, there is a certain amount of protection. What is the framework in which GAFAM work today?

01:16:39 Is it allowed or not in our country, unlike the United States, for progress in this area?

01:16:45 And can GAFAM contribute positively, we will say, to this work on aging?

01:16:52 So there again, the regulation is not the same everywhere, indeed, since we in Europe have the RGPD,

01:16:58 so the General Data Protection Regulation, which protects data, especially health data,

01:17:05 which is part of the most protected, most sensitive data. So indeed, in the United States, this is not the case.

01:17:12 There again, quite recently, the United Kingdom apparently adopted a much more liberal regulation than that of the RGPD.

01:17:19 After, indeed, if we see things from a positive point of view, the intervention of GAFAM is that there are huge financial means,

01:17:26 so we can imagine that they will be able to finance research, that biologists will be able to progress on these issues.

01:17:34 By promising to extend life, perhaps not yet immortality, but by promising to extend life.

01:17:40 In any case, to age in better health. That's especially what I understood, the goal now.

01:17:46 This contribution of potentials, of GAFAM, could accelerate research in your respective fields?

01:17:52 So, means, it can always accelerate research. I would be a little suspicious, there is not only GAFAM,

01:17:59 there are massive investments, private, even for some public countries, in this research.

01:18:08 Not in France, but in other countries. And which starts on this idea that in fact we are very close to being able to apply to man.

01:18:21 So it's a bit like the carrot, in fact, which is sold. So obviously, scientists are delighted because they continue their research,

01:18:30 and I'm delighted too. But I'm afraid, there is no application for the moment that has been validated in humans of this concept,

01:18:38 to slow down biological mechanisms. And I'm afraid we're getting to a bubble where there is a demand for return on investment that is quite painful.

01:18:50 It's my fear, let's say it like that.

01:18:52 Your opinion on the ...?

01:18:54 That there are additional funding coming from the private sector to work on aging, I think it's a good thing.

01:19:02 You have a project in this sense, I think.

01:19:05 Yes, but ...

01:19:07 By creating an institute that would be both funded by the public and the private sector.

01:19:13 Which is dedicated to aging, good health, longevity, and not to be more interested in the aging disease,

01:19:21 since my conviction is that we must treat the cells, the aging of the cells, and therefore before the diseases arrive.

01:19:29 So it's prevention, to put it simply.

01:19:31 It's prevention, exactly. There are a lot of things already on prevention.

01:19:34 You do physical exercise, you have a healthy diet. And we can see that changes in diet and the implementation of physical exercise,

01:19:45 it can make a little step back at the level of our biological clocks.

01:19:50 So typically, there is a possibility of reversal all the same.

01:19:53 We're going to talk about tomorrow now. We have four minutes left to do it, it's very little time.

01:19:58 What will be feasible from a legal point of view, from an ethical point of view, of course, tomorrow,

01:20:05 in the next bio-ethical laws, for example in France.

01:20:07 Do we already have borders that are drawn for tomorrow, from that point of view, from a legal, ethical, legislative point of view?

01:20:13 Not really. What we can say, what we can see, indeed, is that there is an evolution towards more and more possibilities.

01:20:21 We are opening the field of possibilities as we go along. So we can imagine that it will probably continue on a number of themes.

01:20:28 After, no doubt, there are still a number of impassable limits.

01:20:32 And still, in particular, the question of modifications that can be transmitted to future generations,

01:20:37 remains, in my opinion, a limit that will be difficult to overcome.

01:20:43 Since it is still inscribed in our civil code, although we could of course modify it.

01:20:47 But it is still one of the great principles, this principle of non-attainment of the integrity of the human species,

01:20:51 which, moreover, is also taken up in the Oviedo Convention of 1997, which is an international treaty.

01:20:56 It is the only international treaty binding on human rights in terms of bioethics.

01:21:00 It was still signed by 29 states of the Council of Europe and which follows the same rules.

01:21:06 So that, it still seems a limit that will probably last a while, or even always.

01:21:13 - So the principle of respect for human nature? - Yes, the integrity of the human species.

01:21:17 It is the idea that there would still be a human nature, immutable and sacred, that should be preserved.

01:21:21 - Should we strictly remain in this framework for tomorrow, with full respect for human nature,

01:21:27 without transforming human nature, to put it simply?

01:21:31 - I would say, I would go even further.

01:21:33 That is to say that beyond human nature, I would say the biological ecosystem from which we come,

01:21:42 I think it is something that is not said enough.

01:21:44 That is to say that there is a very great heterogeneity of aging in nature,

01:21:48 between species, including humans, we have a certain life expectancy, 120 years,

01:21:52 which we have been able to improve for about two centuries.

01:21:56 There are species that live very little time, and that is their adaptation to the environment.

01:22:02 That means that if humans decide to increase their biological limits,

01:22:06 even if we have the technology, are we not going to break, in the end,

01:22:12 natural ecosystems that go beyond preserving human nature?

01:22:16 And the relationship between, I would say, global changes, the environment and human aging,

01:22:23 I think it is a theme, I would say, which is not thought out enough,

01:22:29 in general, both from a scientific point of view, but also from an ethical or legislative point of view.

01:22:34 - You come to the same conclusion, and you risk having the last word. We have one minute left.

01:22:38 - Yes, so what Eric was saying is that longevity, life expectancy at birth, has doubled in the last century.

01:22:46 And that, we can say that maybe researchers are moving forward on longevity,

01:22:53 and that they will make us live longer, but medicine has been doing it for years, and it has not been criticized.

01:22:59 So typically, I do not think that these things will stop, because medicine may have an unconfessed goal,

01:23:06 to repel death simply by treating diseases.

01:23:09 Today, we will treat, perhaps, the aging of our cells,

01:23:13 and try to make us age, probably, in better health, maybe longer.

01:23:19 - We could die in good health, that's what you're telling us.

01:23:22 - Exactly, that's a bit of the issue.

01:23:24 That is to say, stay younger longer, because that's how we're going to avoid aging, and aging diseases,

01:23:31 and then die without aging diseases, and therefore die in good health, even if it's a little ambitious.

01:23:39 - But dying is fine, after all. - We die of disease.

01:23:43 - We always die of a heart attack, that said.

01:23:46 - We die of disease, I think that's the end.

01:23:49 Thank you very much to all three of you for participating in this Debadoc today, after this documentary.

01:23:54 Your reactions will be on #Debadoc, simply on Twitter.

01:23:58 Thanks to Selma Salih, who, as usual, helped me prepare this show.

01:24:02 And of course, I'll see you for a next Debadoc, and it will be with her documentary and her debate.

01:24:07 See you soon !

01:24:09 (Générique)

DébatDoc - Science : jusqu'où repousser la mort ?

Category

Transcription

Recommandations