David Sinclair· PhD
Research on aging & the modulation of this parameter should be the utmost priority of #biomedicalresearch.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
Research on aging & the modulation of this parameter should be the utmost priority of #biomedicalresearch.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
To extend healthspan and improve quality of life for future generations, research must be prioritized, and funds must be invested in this critical area
if magically you become in charge and you're able to uh double the amount of research being done on the biology of Aging fundamentally then we can afford to do let's give some mice to start with a batch of anti-aging drugs and see if it makes them more resistant to infectious illnesses including pneumonias but but viral infections as well and many others
I agree with you that having a greater proportion of available research dollars uh both private and public going into the biology of aging and its uh impact on late Life Health is would be a good thing
if somebody came along and said we're going to go from 0.5% to 50% of NIH budget is going to go to biology of Aging you'd have no shortage of people I mean it'd be kind of messy at first but you'd have no shortage of people applying for Grants and becoming experts on the biology of Aging
I think it's safe to say the amount of money that's being spent privately probably outdoes public spending I mean in a given year two to one easily right
I actually think that this is a very good time for uh aging research funding and that's not because of what's going on at the ni but it's what's going on in the private sector there's more and more money
so if somebody came along and said we're going to go from 0.5% to 50% of NIH budget is going to go to biology of Aging you'd have no shortage of people I mean it' be kind of messy at first but but you'd have no shortage of people applying for Grants and becoming experts on the biology of Aging the system would work you get the best and the brightest that would go into that and and and do that
but we're not seeing the academic funding that's going into the basic science of aging and longevity.
if you could reallocate 10% of funding from the disease specific pools to the age pools um it it could have an enormous difference based on how little the funding.
I think that uh we should fund um aging somewhere closer to the level we're funding cancer and answer both of those questions At the same time
how if you could um put I don't know if you could reallocate 10% of funding from the disease specific pools to the age pools um it it could have an enormous difference based on how little the funding.