The Mission is to Obtain More Years of Life, But Also More Healthy Years
As the treatment of aging as a medical condition became more mainstream, there was a tendency for advocates and researchers to avoid talking about extending life span. They instead talked about pushing back the onset of poor health and even said explicitly that the goal of research and development was not to lengthen overall human life. From the perspective of aging as an accumulation of cell and tissue damage and potential rejuvenation therapies as repair of that damage, this view is incoherent. A priori, we know that repairing damage will extend both the overall life span and the period of good function in machinery, including biology. This is well studied under the heading of reliability theory, modeling how damaged systems fail.
In medicine, however, we observe that about half of the upward trend in life expectancy over the past century or more arises from an extension to health without an extension to life span. How can that be? A common explanation is that some forms of late-life damage are relatively little affected by any advance in public health or medical technology. One possibility is that transthyretin amyloidosis is the mechanism of interest, an accumulation of harmful amyloid that contributes to cardiovascular disease, and is now thought to be much more prevalent than previously assumed. Since that is now a treatable condition, albeit one that is only actually treated in the rare very severe cases, it will be interesting to observe what happens when the therapies become generic and thus potentially widely used.
Healthy life extension: Geroscience's north star
Mikhail Blagosklonny was right to say out loud: the goal of geroscience is life extension. Not "vitality" or a polite euphemism for better late-life care, but life extension. He also insisted on disciplined evidence: if we claim we are modifying aging, we should demand hard outcomes in mammals rather than an endless parade of biomarkers. Where I would extend his argument, as a longevity physician, is: the field must stop treating "lifespan vs. healthspan" as a fork in the road. In medicine, and in the lives our patients actually live, they are not competitors. The only mission that is both scientifically coherent and clinically meaningful is healthy life extension: more years in full health.
The "healthspan, not lifespan" framing makes geroscience sound as though it is not about longevity, when longevity is what emerges from delaying the biology that drives multimorbidity. World Health Organization (WHO) data show that from 2000 to 2019, life expectancy increased more than healthy life expectancy, meaning we added years lived with disease or disability. A cross-national analysis quantified the global "healthspan to lifespan gap" at approximately 9.6 years. Modern systems deliver more years, but not more good years. That is precisely why geroscience must be more ambitious. We should treat healthy life extension as the goal and define success as health-adjusted longevity: extending lifespan while proportionally expanding function, resilience, and independence.
If we agree that the goal is healthy life extension, incrementalism becomes a choice rather than a constraint. Consider the balance sheet: within the National Institute on Aging (NIA) budget, the Division of Aging Biology is funded at roughly $346 million, whereas neuroscience-related research is funded in the billions. We have not resourced basic aging biology in proportion to its theoretical leverage: the possibility of delaying many diseases at once. This is not a call to rob disease programs. It is a call to stop pretending a civilization-scale problem can be solved with niche-scale funding.