The Sacramento Bee is running an article on the Buck Institute for Age Research. It's representatives of the mainstream aging research approach to talking about their work: slowly, slowly, and never any prospects for large gains in healthy longevity. Which is probably the case given their approach to the problem of aging, to change our hugely complex metabolic processes and genetic programming so as to slow down the rate at which damage accumulates. As usual, I'm much more interested in researchers who advocate keeping the metabolism we have, developing near-term ways to repair the biochemical damage we know a great deal about, and aim to reverse aging rather than just slow it down. The under the hood battle over how the research community moves forward is the most important scientific debate of our time, for it will determine how long we can live in good health.