An interesting article from Esquire amply demonstrates the lengths some researchers go to convince themselves that it is fine to combat age-related degeneration, but not to lengthen life. "Should we change the aging program in humans? I can't make that decision. There has to be a regulatory body somewhere down the road that will make that decision. I have to believe that I'm doing this for age-related disease, and I have faith that there will be regulation later on. ... we will probably be able to show that the drug we have upregulates longevity, and that puts us on a slippery slope. ... To some degree, the future [is] already taking place right before his eyes ... In the past, the accumulation of a man's wealth was always offset by the accumulation of a man's years; now he sees men who are experiencing age as pure advantage [and] he finds the spectacle appalling. At the same time, he sees vigorous old scientists [still] doing crucial work, and he finds them inspiring. ... sure enough, striding energetically across the courtyard is some famous scientist or another, shod in sandals and wearing a towel, his white hair wet and his white teeth grinning. Dillin has no idea where he came from; but he does know where he's going - to his lab, and to science - and who is to say he shouldn't be able to go there forever?" No-one can judge how - or how long - you or I would like to live, and it is nothing less than cowardice to call for government to force your choices upon the rest of us.