Anne C. looks at how to frame persuasive advocacy for healthy life extension research: "Matt thinks that maybe we ought to start simple -- e.g., unless specifically grilled on the end-goals of longevity research, we should simply attempt to frame it as a natural extension of medical care. The purpose of medicine, after all, is to save lives, so longevity medicine really ought to be a no-brainer. The only reason it isn't for a lot of people might be due to the way it can sometimes end up being framed, so framing it properly is undeniably important. This is a subtle point, but possibly one worth mulling over. I have become reasonably convinced that focusing too heavily on specific diseases in terms of research could be harmful -- that is, it might encourage progress in a direction that results in treatments that really only apply to people who are already experiencing dangerous or even deadly symptoms." I'm in favor of advocacy to push out the bounds of the debate, and against any sort of retreat to moderation for the sake of short term advantage - but others are trying the moderate path (or at least what is now the new moderate path, given that the limits of the discussion have been extended). May the best efforts win.