Heshu Li, President, HESCA Anti-Aging Center, Canada | FOUNDERS Part 1
https://youtu.be/hHJe5ofDJYA
(Transcript from the episode's English subtitles, translated from the Chinese interview; speakers not labelled. Host: Sarah Yu.)
The views expressed are the guest's own experience and opinions and do not constitute medical advice. Please consult a licensed physician about any health concern.

[0:00] Highlights
Nowadays many people say we may live to over 100, and some scientists think 150 or more. How do you see it? getting them to live to 150 or 180, in scientific terms, that's possible. But the biggest ethical issue is: if they can have children, that's trouble. Once the modified genes enter the human genome, No longer certain. In five hundred years, it may no longer be today's human genome.

[0:30] A full professor of immunology at 38
I came over from mainland China. At 38, I became a full professor of immunology in China, and I spent three years as a master's supervisor. Then in 2004, I came to Canada, starting out as a student. Step by step, I worked my way up. and then founded my own platforms.

[0:48] What decides how long we live?
In my view, fundamentally, this comes down to just two things: one is genetic factors, the other is environmental factors. Genetic factors: the genes your parents gave you set limits. We call that genetic limitation. Say the genes your parents gave you only allow you to live to 90. Then, through acquired means, without changing the genes, through natural means, extending your lifespan is, most likely, impossible. That's the genetic factor. Genetic factors take up such a big share? Genetic factors don't account for much. They make up roughly 5% to 8%. Some scientists say around 10% to 12%. So most of it still lies with environmental factors. Environmental factors include your own... Environmental factors include your daily routine, eating habits, work stress, and so on. Basically, everything you come into contact with after you enter society counts as an environmental factor. Just these two factors. The HESCA Anti-Aging Center

[1:50] Two kinds of aging
focuses on just one thing: anti-aging. And anti-aging comes in two kinds: one is physiological anti-aging, the other is pathological anti-aging. The highest ideal for people is to pass away without disease. If someone is always in a sub-health state, that also speeds up their pace toward that disease-free end. We slow that pace down a little. As for physiological aging, physiological anti-aging: when someone is ill, their pace toward death is faster. Our goal is to slow it down a bit, to slow it down with a high quality of life. I don't know if you've heard of

[2:26] What is epigenetics?
a term called epigenetics. As opposed to another kind of genetics, called classical (Mendelian) genetics. Classical genetics is the genetics from Mom and Dad, formed by the sperm and egg they give. That's classical genetics. It's innate. The acquired kind is epigenetics. Meaning what? You use acquired environmental factors to intervene, without touching the diseased genes, and coexist with them. Say, you've heard of people who got cancer in their 30s and still lived to over 100. How did they do it? By relying on epigenetics, on acquired genetics, on acquired environmental factors to intervene, not touching the disease-causing genes, living alongside them, and they can still live a long time.

[3:12] Can gene editing get us to 150?
In the most cutting-edge tech fields, which areas do you think scientists are researching now? In the area of genes. Genes. Gene editing. Because our research today only targets certain diseases. Say, in some diseases certain genes are missing, or certain genes have problems, so you modify them. With a molecular biology method, you modify it: knock it out, or alter it, add something, take something away, add a certain chemical group, or remove a group. It's a molecular biology technique. Now the key, the biggest problem, is this: Studying an individual is no problem. Purely doing research on that one person, getting them to live to 150 or 180, in scientific terms, that's possible. But the biggest ethical issue is: if they can have children, that's trouble. Once the modified genes enter the human genome, No longer certain. In five hundred years, it may no longer be today's human genome. It's like 60 years ago, when tetracycline was discovered. At the time, the whole world rejoiced. But some years later, many people turned up with black teeth. That was humanity... Teeth blackened by tetracycline, right. Tetracycline-stained teeth. Humans harmed themselves. At the time it seemed fine. Now I take that same idea and apply it to today's gene modification. It's the same here. We must weigh the ethical issue. I'm fairly conservative, fairly reserved about gene modification. Of course, I'm not against it. You can modify genes to treat disease. But because technology has to advance... Technology has to advance. You can modify, and do it to treat disease. No problem. But as for the social problems that follow, how do we solve them? That's for sociologists to consider. What people really hope for now is how, in this environment, to extend their lifespan and live longer, living happier and healthier lives.