ment status and with infirmities and complexities of being old in contemporary America.

By even the most guarded reports, the situation shows every promise of getting more difficult and more complicated with an increasing by greater proportion of our population in a nonproductive, dependent and medically high risk situation. Yet we still have been most shortsighted in looking at this problem and assessing ways of using the remarkable assets of this group of men and women.

This bill is a step in the direction of changing our current policy, which I think is a "no policy," and will give us a chance to affect the situation. It is essential, however, that the creation of such an Institute with fiscal integrity be followed actively by appropriate funding as well as a staffing pattern that will do justice to the crucial task at hand.

Ten years ago at the White House Conference on Aging one of the unanimous recommendations was and I am quoting: "We recommend the early establishment of a National Institute of Gerontology within the existing framework of the National Institutes of Health.

I think it is high time we got on with the job.

Thank you.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you very much.

Do I take it what you are saying in part in this: In looking forward to the day when there are "breakthroughs" in cancer research, heart research, kidney research, et cetera, when and if those breakthroughs come, the problems that we face in the field of gerontology will be all the more accentuated, acute, than they are now, and they are not inconsequential now?

Dr. EISDORFER. That is exactly right, Senator.

Senator EAGLETON. Let me ask you-you alluded in your testimony to the cut in research funds-what types of research currently, either undertaken or contemplated, might well be cut or obliterated if these budget cuts go into effect?

Dr. EISDORFER. Let me give you a few examples.

There are two major longitudinal studies and perhaps a footnote here is worth adding: Until a few decades ago most of what we knew about aging resulted from examining a group of older people and a group of younger people and comparing them."

Well, this is really not the best way to study the process because obviously a lot of the things that affect an older person have changed quite significantly when it comes to the younger person. Educational level is one example.

So the strategy of following people over time to see how individuals. approach change is very important. This is called longitudinal research but-two of the major longitudinal studies in the country will be dropped. One of them has been in existence for more than 15 years, another one in existence for about 6 years.

The latter one I know-well, both of them involve coalitions of upwards of nine different areas of research ranging from immunology to sociology.

Another line of investigation that will be cut is a study of learning in the aged including the concomitant biologic changes in the individual plus some work that has shown there are drugs which can change and maintain the ability to learn in old people.

This research, recently reported in Science, back in December, will be cut under the existing projections.

Another line of investigation is blood pressure, hypertension, in maintaining intellectual functioning, and this is in this week's Science. The work on hypertension and intelligence will not be funded past the middle of the year.

It probably has been approved-although that information is really not known yet since the scientific review is still in progress but by all odds, even if it were approved, it would not be funded because of an administrative action which says that no continued funding will be provided to grants expiring in fiscal 1972, in effect that would be considered new dollars. There are others. I just happen to know these.

Senator EAGLETON. Well, take that 15-year study. Where is that being conducted?

Dr. EISDORFER. Durham, N.C.

Senator EAGLETON. OK. Here is 15 years of effort gone into this continuing study. If it is stopped-a study of that type-which is a comparative, almost evolutionary study, once you stop it, it is lost and you cannot recapture it. You would have to start at ground zero.

Say it stopped now and 2 years from now somebody says let's start another one, and you start all over again.

Dr. EISDORFER. Precisely. Particularly this study which I know recently has been oriented around, looking at a number of factors including reasons and causes of death and relating it to processes much earlier in the lifespan so that we can do something 15 years before

the terminal date.

I know, for example, that the particular university in question has invested, independent of the NIH, probably more dollars than even the NIH in this study. Yet it could not carry it alone without the extra support.

Senator EAGLETON. What is the annual price tag on that?

Dr. EISDORFER. On that particular one, I think probably on the order of about $150,000.

Senator EAGLETON. From NIH?

Dr. EISDORFER. Yes.

Senator EAGLETON. Have we learned anything from that study? Dr. EISDORFER. I think we have learned a great deal from that study already. There have been many articles, indeed two books that have come out of it. As a matter of fact, it was a pioneer in its field, one of the first studies of normal aging, and had a profound effect on a variety of things from an understanding of intelligence in old people to the electroencephalogram through dermatology and so on and the payoff is almost now beginning.

Senator EAGLETON. What is the research base in terms of number of people?

Dr. EISDORFER. That particular one started off with 260 people representing a sample of the Piedmont area of North Carolina.

Senator EAGLETON. Was it a pretty good cross sectional sample? Dr. EISDORFER. Yes. I guess that is the point I was making. It is not a question of the quality of the study. It won't be lost because of any quality problem. It would be lost purely because of a technical problem in that no new aging research will be funded and this would come under that category. If it were in a different category it might easily be funded.

Senator EAGLETON. But it was a good cross sectional mix in terms of ethnic, economics

Dr. EISDORFER. It is a good reflector of the 1960 tract for the area in terms of age, race, sex, socioeconomic factors.

Senator EAGLETON. Do the 260 people-what has been the dropout rate, other than by death?

Dr. EISDORFER. Very low. It has been about 10-15 percent and the reason for this has to do with the way the studies operate. There is a very close contact with the people.

Senator EAGLETON. At least annually with each participant?

Dr. EISDORFER. More. I happen to know that in this particular study. Christmas cards, birthday cards, et cetera, are sent. So the investigators are in frequent contact with the subjects through some way or another. At least the participants know they are part of the panel. We have had people cancel all sorts of plans to be available when their annual or biannual examination time comes.

you

Senator EAGLETON. And NICHD has informed that this one is going to go?

Dr. EISDORFER. No. But it has to go because it will come up for renewal-the point of course is that no new research or continuing research will be funded, and as Marott put it this program of research happens to be in the unlucky situation of coming up this year for its 5-year renewal and because of this won't get funding.

Let me kind of point out too, sir, that we also run a very large training program, perhaps the largest postdoctoral research program in aging in the country.

I would like to echo the statement made by Dr. Hettinger. I can multiply his case, although perhaps not quite as extreme, because most of our people tend to be a bit more junior. We are talking about postdoctoral research. This year, between the university and the NIH, we invested something like 25,000 per man per year. So it is 50,000 for a 2-year program. Independent of what the individual loses personally in coming into a low stipend program.

I don't know that one of our fellows has gotten a job in aging. As it happens they have gotten jobs as of a few days ago some of them won't have jobs until September and have no income for 3 months.

I was working on this problem yesterday. But there is no job-and I should indicate we have approximately 50 applications-indicating that there are a lot of people who want to study the field and this is in stark contrast to even 6 or 7 years ago.

In a sense the scientific community has done its job. We have gotten NIH help and unfortunately perhaps we have turned on a lot of people to the problems of aging. Thus we are going to educate and train these people and they will find themselves with no position. We are going to have a repetition of Dr. Hettinger's story.

Senator EAGLETON. What can Government do now or in the immediately foreseeable future to assist in the Dr. Hettinger dilemma and the one you say has multiplied in altogether too many other cases?

Dr. EISDORFER. As I understand, your bill will do an enormous amount toward giving us a structure in which we can move. Senator EAGLETON. Structure for

Dr. EISDORFER. It is a funding problem. We have to have a structure to initiate and support good research. There are just no funds now to support it and one of the problems perhaps is that as a result of the current NIH structure when money gets tight, aging gets differentially

hurt. One of the important things we need then is at least a minimum. protection of research in this area.

The other component we require is that we look very closely at the priorities of funding. Aging research for a number of reasons has invariably had a low priority in the Federal establishment and it is now time that we begin to face a problem that probably didn't exist 30 or 40 years ago. The number and proportion of older persons is going up at a very rapid rate.

Our society is changing dramatically, with retirement coming at an earlier period in life. I think we now have a very rapidly emerging problem and a belated recognition of it, and so I guess what I am saying is that we need to pay more attention to this need in terms of structure of Government and much higher level of concern and support. Senator EAGLETON. Well, thank you very much, Doctor. Your testimony has been very, very helpful.

Our final witness is Dr. Denham Harman, professor of biochemistry, College of Medicine, University of Nebraska.

While Dr. Harman is coming forward, the Chair recognizes the presence of the representative from West Virginia, Ken Hechler, with some of his constituents. It is nice to have you with us.

Mr. HECHLER. Thank you.

Senator EAGLETON. Dr. Harman?

STATEMENT OF DR. DENHAM HARMAN, PROFESSOR OF BIOCHEMISTRY, COLLEGE OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA

Dr. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is Denham Harman. I am chairman of the American Aging Association (AGE) and professor of medicine and of biochemistry at the University of Nebraska College of Medicine in Omaha, Nebr.

I welcome the opportunity to speak today on the need for a new National Institute of Health, the National Institute of Gerontology. Aging is a major biological process. The aging process determines the maximum lifespan of a species; thus, very few dogs live beyond 20 years and few humans beyond 100 years. Aging underlies our increased susceptibility with advancing age to cancer, heart attacks, and other life-terminating events; dogs die of the same spectrum of diseases as does man but the rate at which these diseases develop and run their course is about five times as fast in man for the lifespan of dogs is about one-fifth that for man.

Very little work has been done on the aging process, largely because of our past success in dealing with specific diseases.

It is now time to start putting increased emphasis on biomedical aging research. We have about reached the practical limit of our ability to increase average life expectancy through conventional disease-oriented research; life expectancy has not increased since 1955.

The only way man is likely in the future to significantly increase his years of useful healthy life is to slow down the aging process; in so doing we will put off in time heart attacks, cancer, and the events which kill us. The conviction that this is a feasible possibility has been growing steadily over the past 15 to 20 years due to the gradual accumulation of knowledge of the effects of age on biological systems and of reasonable hypotheses to account for such changes. Besides shifting the average life expectancy to higher values, inhibition of the

aging process will also increase the maximum lifespan so that a few individuals will live to, say 110 to 120 years.

Establishment and adequate funding of the proposed National Institute of Gerontology would significantly increase the level of biomedical aging research, presently only about $4 million per year, by drawing the attention of the scientific community to this important basic biologic problem. It is a very reasonable possibility that pursuit of the leads we already have regarding the nature of the aging process will result in significant increases in average life expectancy with concomitant increase in the years of useful healthy life.

In addition to funding unsolicited biomedical aging research applications, an important function of the proposed Institute should be to actively expand current and future research ideas that show promise of leading to practical means of increasing the healthy lifespan of man. Attention should also be given to measuring the effectiveness of proposed antiaging measures in man. This Institute-directed work would in essence accomplish the purposes for which S. 1925 has been introduced.

Irrespective of any future advances in our ability to control the aging process and the degenerative disease, most individuals will eventually join the ranks of the aged. The major problem in the aged is the maintenance of functional capability-both mental and physicalto the maximum practical extent so as to make life worth living for as long as possible.

This is a complex medical, social-psychological problem to which the proposed Institute should devote significant, continuous attention.

In summary, aging is a major biological process. It is this process that now nullifies our efforts to increase the average lifespan. The proposed Institute of Gerontology should:

(a) Significantly increase our knowledge of aging, and, quite likely, result in practical means of increasing our years of health life, and (b) Aid in making the declining years of life happier and more worthwhile.

Senator EAGLETON. Thank you, Doctor.

I think your presentation, although brief, is a very, very fitting analysis of summary of almost the entire testimony of today.

Dr. HARMAN. I would like to emphasize a couple of points. Aging might be looked upon as a prime example of built-in obsolescence. Mother Nature has determined that each species will live a certain amount of time.

We need to know what determines the rate of aging. The process is apparently the same in all mammalian species. To understand the nature of the so-called biological clock and how to control its rate should be a major focus of biomedical aging research. If we can slow up the clock we can get more years of healthy life.

I think it is worth pointing out that if we could eliminate today all the usual causes of death, such as cancer or cardiovascular diseases, we would gain at the most about 15 years of life. If we could eliminate cancer, we would gain about 22 years of average life expectancy while the corresponding figure for cardiovascular diseases is around 10 years. If we could eliminate everything, a facet 15 years.

In other words, our life potential maximum average expectancy is about 15 years more than that which we enjoy right now.