Fight Aging!

A great deal of advocacy for the development of therapies to slow and reverse aging has moved on from a focus on reducing suffering. That the majority of the arguments now focus on economic productivity and reduced entitlement costs reflects a broad and possibly quite correct cynicism about what motivates the politicians, wealthy political influencers, and bureaucrats who collectively control the largest flows of funding and support in our societies. Private funding for research and development focused on longevity remains very motivated by the potential reduced suffering, and indeed the potential to reduce one's own personal suffering in the years ahead. However, the longevity industry of the recent past, and for the near future, exists in a state of tension as it attempts to make the transition from a privately supported new venture to an established field supported by the full panoply of state controlled medical systems - to be as openly and comprehensively backed by governments as cancer research and development.

Most advocates these days appear to believe that the way to make this happen is to exploit the high level of anxiety in the ruling classes of much of the world that centers around the demographic transition to ever increasing numbers of older people, and the costs of old age. The governments of the world have largely chosen to exert a great deal of control over the development and provision of medicine, to the point of it becoming an expense for them, a burden much akin to the mess that was made of pension entitlements, the creation of large enough promises of future expenditure to financially ruin the systems created to manage them. Treatments for aging are a deus ex machina that will save the system, or that is the hope being pushed into government circles by advocates attempting to achieve greater support for the development of longevity therapeutics. The realpolitik always seems somewhat shabby in full daylight when it departs utterly from the considerations of what aging does to an individual, physically and mentally. The true reason to build therapies to treat aging is because this offers the strong possibility of a very sizable reduction in human suffering and death, not because it can prop up dysfunction systems of governance.

The longevity dividend: Why governments and markets must catch up

'How much' often matters less than 'how fast'. Financial systems might comfortably accommodate a decade increase in life expectancy if it emerges gradually over half a century, but could they accommodate the same increase within 5 years? Economies are built to absorb gradual change and are much less comfortable with discontinuities. Human longevity may be approaching that kind of discontinuity. The latest scientific advances point to the emergence of what we have termed 'system-level' therapeutics capable of bringing about rapid, non-linear changes in both healthspan and lifespan trajectories, challenging the incremental paradigms that underpin current economic and demographic forecasting models. If they do, governments, healthcare systems, insurers and pension funds will have to respond to a break with history, not a continuation of it.

Public debate often treats longevity as a cost curve. That is only half the ledger. In an era of demographic ageing and stagnant economic growth forecasts, one overlooked truth is emerging: longevity science may be the most powerful economic productivity lever of all time. Governments spend billions annually on education, digital transformation and industrial innovation - all in the name of boosting national productivity. Yet few acknowledge that the single largest drag on workforce participation is declining health in midlife and beyond due to ageing. In the United States, the direct costs of chronic health conditions total around $1.1 trillion - equivalent to 5.8% of US gross domestic product (GDP). When indirect costs of lost economic productivity are included, the total costs of chronic diseases in the United States increase to $3.7 trillion - in other words, they equate to almost 20% of the US GDP.

The economic argument for longevity research is clear: targeting the root causes of ageing is not just a healthcare imperative, it is set to become a non-negotiable economic strategy. Governments should treat it as such, allocating funding accordingly and incentivising translational research, clinical trials, and public-private partnerships in this field. In the 20th century, public investment in antibiotics and vaccines changed the world. In the 21st century, ageing biology has the potential to do the same.