A&M study aims to help dogs live longer – and maybe humans too
FORT WORTH — A new study is exploring ways to extend the lifespan of dogs, potentially paving the way for similar treatments in humans.
The Dog Aging Project, led by researchers at Texas A&M and the University of Washington, is studying canine aging with a focus on the drug rapamycin, commonly used during human organ transplants. Early studies suggest the drug may improve heart and cognitive function, and mobility, and even extend a dog's lifespan.
Dr. Kate Creevy, co-founder of the project, emphasizes that while the drug isn't a miracle cure, the goal is to help dogs not only live longer but also remain healthier in their later years.
"This is a really important example of community science," Creevy said. "The people collecting this data are dog owners, everyday folks. Science doesn't have to happen in some ivory tower or a research institution. Science is happening every day all around us."
So far, 170 dogs are participating in the trial. With a new $7 million federal grant, researchers hope to expand the study to 580 dogs.
If successful, the research could provide insights into extending human lifespan as well.
Ron Beiswanger, a North Texas dog owner, enrolled his 9-year-old pit bull, Krull, in the study two years ago. He won't know until the study concludes whether Krull has been receiving rapamycin or a placebo, but he has no regrets about taking part.
"They're only here for a short time, and it's not fair to us," Beiswanger said. "The longer they are here, the better. If I can be a statistic to help future dogs, this is worth it."
Results from the study are expected in about four years.
Dog owners interested in enrolling their pets in the trial must have dogs over 7 years old, in good health, and weighing at least 44 pounds. Owners will also need to bring their dogs to one of the participating clinical sites, such as Texas A&M, every six months for three years.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
16 hours ago
- Boston Globe
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. wants health agencies to use a lot more AI. After the MAHA report, experts have some concerns
Advertisement And with the apparent inclusion of material imagined by AI, referred to as hallucinations, in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report, they see an ominous sign for the administration's ability to deploy it safely. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'If they were proceeding more apace, and I'm not talking about glacial government pace, I'm talking about responsible pace, this wouldn't happen,' said Oren Etzioni, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington and entrepreneur who studies AI. 'The presence of these embarrassing missteps just shows that it's amateur hour.' Kennedy has expressed ambitious but vague plans, usually in the context of cutting costs. He has outlined his vision during several congressional hearings, including one to replace the use of animals in experimental testing and some steps in clinical trials. 'We're phasing out most animal studies . . . because we can accomplish a lot of those goals on safety and efficacy with AI technology,' Kennedy said. Advertisement He also mentioned using AI to analyze data that HHS and other agencies have collected on patients, such as people on Medicare and Medicaid. He said they've recruited experts to 'transform our agency for a central hub for AI.' So far, the Food and Drug Administration has announced computer and AI modeling. 'In the long-term (3-5 years), FDA will aim to make animal studies the exception rather than the norm for pre-clinical safety/toxicity testing,' the FDA said in its road map. But the mistakes in the 'Make America Healthy Again' report have experts skeptical of HHS's ability to use AI correctly. The report cited sources that do not exist and had garbled footnotes, The agency declined to answer definitively whether AI was used on the report and why it contained nonexistent citations, but rather only highlighted the substance of the report. It also did not offer specifics about protocols for responsible AI use. 'HHS is addressing the risk of AI-generated errors through rigorous validation, human oversight, and strict quality controls,' a spokesperson said in a statement. 'AI tools are designed to support — not replace — expert judgment.' Advertisement Experts say the specifics of how AI is implemented will bethe true measure of whether the efforts at HHS will succeed or end up being harmful. 'I'm actually deeply optimistic about what [AI] can do in a lot of areas, including the ones that the secretary mentioned,' said Ziad Obermeyer, a physician and researcher at the University of California Berkeley who studies AI in biomedicine. 'What my research has shown is that it actually comes down to some of the really boring details that make the difference between a good, powerful algorithm that helps people, and one that really messes things up.' Republicans who work on AI issues in the Senate supported Kennedy's goals but also agreed on the importance of rolling it out with the right protections. 'This is going to be the future,' said Indiana Senator Todd Young. 'I mean, we'd be doing something wrong if, if the head of our health agency wasn't talking about using AI.' The two general use cases that Kennedy has mentioned, replacing steps in clinical trials and analyzing patient data, have some potential issues in common, including that AI can generate false information. But they also have risks unique to each case. Privacy, for example, is a serious concern with patient data. If not properly stripped of identifying factors, even supposedly anonymized data can be re-identified, as has happened in some cases. 'The most secret private information that people have is their health care data, and so AI should not be used in any way that does not have the strongest possible safeguards,' said Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey, a Democrat. 'We could have an absolute privacy catastrophe.' Advertisement Harvard Law School professor I. Glenn Cohen, who studies medical ethics and AI, said that the idea holds great potential, but that the administration would need to be very transparent about how it is protecting data and would be wise to run smaller pilot studies first. 'The 'move fast and break things' ethos of Silicon Valley may be appropriate in some parts of life — I don't really care if you're doing it for the order of Instagram postings," Cohen said. 'But it's not a philosophy we advocate for physicians or an attitude I think most people want health care to take.' The key limitation of AI is that it is only as good as the dataset used to build it. In specific areas where scientific data is really good and outcomes are predictable, such as in the structure of proteins, scientists have built powerful AI tools. AI can also help doctors and patients assess symptoms. But those are different from the discovery of new information, experts say, which is what a lot of science and clinical trials for novel treatments are designed to explore. Allison Coffin is a researcher at Creighton University who studies hearing loss, including that caused by certain medicines. She uses mostly zebra fish in her work, but also rodents. She says her lab is working on AI tools to help identify potential toxins in order to conduct more targeted research. But, she said, AI would always be used as an idea generator for testing in animals, not to replace them. 'That's an excellent case for AI, because AI can rapidly assess millions of potential drug structures. But you would still want to test their efficacy for new therapies in an animal,' Coffin said. 'I would never want to take a medication that hadn't been given to a living creature before, and I would think most people wouldn't. Do we want to be the first to take medication because a computer model says that it's safe?' Advertisement Other scientists questioned the ability of the government to do the cutting-edge research necessary after the administration's deep cuts to research funding and staff. 'Honestly I'm struggling for what to say,' wrote Sean Eddy, a Harvard scientist who works on building computer models for biology and genomic research. 'I just don't see how it makes sense for HHS to talk about delivering innovative technological breakthroughs while they're destabilizing and belittling the US scientific research enterprise. . . . Every lab at Harvard that does this kind of research, including my own, has had all their federal funding terminated.' Experts also question whether Kennedy understands where AI technology actually is today versus its potential capacities. Many cited cautionary tales of much lower-stakes AI deployment gone wrong, such as companies that 'Doing things like simulating an entire body in order to save clinical trials is just grossly unrealistic where we sit right now,' said Gary Marcus, a professor emeritus at New York University and critic of AI enthusiasm. 'If we're lucky, we can do it in 40 [years], but we certainly can't now. That's just a pipe dream.' Advertisement Tal Kopan can be reached at
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
A&M gets new Dean of Veterinary Medicine and Biomed Science
College Station, Tx (FOX 44) – Texas A&M University has appointed Dr. Bonnie R. Rush as the next dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences. Dr. Rush comes from a position as the Hodes Family Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Kansas State University, where she has served for over thirty years, She begins her new job at A&M August 1. 'Dr. Rush brings to Texas A&M an extraordinary record of academic leadership, clinical insight and institutional vision,' said Dr. Alan Sams, executive vice president and provost. 'Her commitment to innovation, wellness and student success aligns perfectly with the mission of the university and the VMBS. I'm confident she will elevate the impact of our veterinary programs across Texas and beyond.' Rush joined Kansas State's faculty in 1993 as an associate professor of equine internal medicine and rose through the ranks to department head, then hospital director and, in 2017, to dean. She is a Diplomate of the American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine (Large Animal) and an internationally respected voice in veterinary internal medicine, medical education and student well-being. During her tenure as dean, she led the creation of multiple Doctor of Veterinary Medicine (DVM) certificate programs and expanded clinical outreach through high-impact shelter medicine and community rotations. She also launched a donor-funded student wellness program — now a national model for veterinary schools — and oversaw major faculty and staff development initiatives, as well as the renovation of teaching and hospital facilities. Her leadership helped secure federal funding from the National Institutes of Health to support a new biomedical research facility on the Kansas State campus. Rush currently serves as president of the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges, a role that gives her a national platform to address the future of veterinary education and workforce development. Rush currently serves as president of the American Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges, a role that gives her a national platform to address the future of veterinary education and workforce development.'I'm deeply honored to join Texas A&M and lead a college with such a distinguished legacy in veterinary medicine, biomedical sciences and One Health research,' Rush said. 'The faculty, staff and students at VMBS are at the forefront of the profession, and I'm excited to partner with them to advance education, research and service in ways that truly matter to animals, people and communities.' Rush earned her Doctor of Veterinary Medicine degree, summa cum laude, and a Master of Science in Veterinary Clinical Sciences from The Ohio State University. Her scholarship has focused on respiratory disease in horses, as well as evidence-based approaches to clinical teaching. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Boston Globe
a day ago
- Boston Globe
How a purge at one obscure panel could disrupt US vaccinations
On Monday, Kennedy, long a vaccine skeptic, Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up On the social platform X, he promised not to replace the panel's experts with 'ideological anti-vaxxers.' On Wednesday, Kennedy Advertisement For years, Kennedy has argued that American children receive too many shots and has falsely claimed that vaccines are not tested in placebo-controlled studies. Critics fear he is now setting the stage for a rollback of federal recommendations. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Secretary of Health and Human Services, testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, May 14, 2025. HAIYUN JIANG/NYT 'I'm very, very worried about young children in this country,' said Dr. Helen Chu, professor of medicine at the University of Washington and one of the committee members who was fired. If the panel's new members 'don't believe in vaccines, then I think it puts us in a very dangerous place.' Advertisement Richard Hughes IV, who teaches vaccine law at George Washington University, predicted that the new committee would move to pare back the childhood vaccination schedule 'relatively quickly.' The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to a request for comment. 'All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense,' Kennedy said in a message on X. 'They have each committed to demanding definitive safety and efficacy data before making any new vaccine recommendations.' He also acknowledged that the panel would 'review safety and efficacy data for the current schedule as well.' The upheaval arrives as measles infections approach the highest level in decades; whooping cough has risen significantly, too, compared with this time last year. Steep cuts to global immunization programs also make it more likely that infectious diseases, such as polio, may reach American shores. Alarmed, members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform have asked Kennedy to provide all communications and documents related to the dismissal of the committee and a 'detailed description of the rationale for removing each individual' by June 24, according to a letter obtained by The New York Times. The American Medical Association called for an immediate reversal of the purge and resolved to 'identify and evaluate' alternative sources of advice on vaccines. It is unclear whether Kennedy will appoint more members -- there is no required minimum -- before the next scheduled meeting at the end of June. And no one can say whether or how the decisions of the reshaped panel may diverge from current recommendations. Advertisement But any softening of federal recommendations regarding vaccination would ripple through the nation in unpredictable ways. Access to the shots eventually may depend on where you live, which insurance policy you hold and which doctor you see, experts said. 'That obviously is going to decrease the number of people who are protected with these vaccines,' said Dr. Mysheika Roberts, the health commissioner of Columbus, Ohio. 'I am concerned about what that means about herd immunity, what that means about outbreaks and infections.' Under the Affordable Care Act, insurance companies are required to cover the cost of any vaccine recommended by the ACIP. Losing that endorsement means that some insurance companies may choose not to pay for immunizations. Nor could those shots be offered for free through the Vaccines for Children program. The measles vaccine can cost up to $250 and the four-dose polio series up to $340. 'You'd essentially have a two-tier system where people who have cash at hand can purchase their own vaccines if they're not recommended, and those who don't have the money may have to go without,' said Dr. Yvonne Maldonado, a pediatrician at Stanford University and one of the fired panelists. The panel could take a more measured approach, perhaps advising that a doctor's sign-off should be required for some immunizations. The vaccines program would still cover it, but reimbursement from private insurers would be more difficult to enforce, Hughes said. The Vaccines for Children program was created after a measles epidemic from 1989 to 1991 led to tens of thousands of cases and hundreds of deaths. More than half of the infected children were unvaccinated even though many had seen a doctor, because they could not afford the shots, according to the CDC. Advertisement Cutting back on free access to immunizations 'is not a strategy to even think about -- only vaccinating potentially the half of the population that has health insurance,' Chu said. If measles continues to resurge, for example, even vaccinated people will be at risk, she said. Vaccinations are not profitable for clinics, and reduced demand could mean that fewer places bother to offer the shots. 'In places where you know there's a large anti-vax sentiment, there may not be financial incentive, or any incentive, to keep those vaccines in stock,' she said. ACIP makes recommendations for immunizations. But the authority to mandate them rests with the states. Even if the federal government walked away from some recommendations, most, if not all, states are likely to maintain the current mandates for school-age children, said Claire Hannan, executive director of the Association of Immunization Managers, which represents state and local officials. 'Even where legislators are chipping away at requirements and mandates, there's a commitment to protect children,' she said. Still, she added, 'our members are very confused.' Now some scientists are considering establishing alternatives to federal guidance on vaccines. 'The new ACIP cannot be trusted to oversee unbiased and scientifically sound vaccine policy development,' said Michael Osterholm, a public health researcher at the University of Minnesota. He and other experts have formed a new group, called the Vaccine Integrity Project, to offer science-based advice on immunization. Members of the ACIP are usually vetted thoroughly. It took more than four months for Roberts, who was set to join the panel in July, to be accepted, and several more weeks to fill out at least 50 forms, including disclosures of conflict of interest. The committee's members typically rotate in staggered four-year terms to ensure some continuity and institutional memory. Advertisement Mina Zadeh, a CDC scientist, has been named to oversee the committee, but the rest of her team has not been set up. Staff members who lead the committee's work groups may meet with her 'starting early next week,' according to a recording of an internal meeting obtained by the Times. But the panel's next meeting is scheduled to begin June 25. Dr. Adam Ratner, a pediatric infectious diseases physician and expert on vaccine policy, said he worried the new members could not be prepared on such short notice and without the help of previous members or CDC personnel. 'This raises the question of whether the goal here is for ACIP to be able to do its job,' he added. 'Kennedy has accused the prior committee members of conflicts of interest and for rubber-stamping things, but I think that's exactly what we're looking at with this group.' This article originally appeared in .
