Overstated longevity claims may hinder funding for aging research, and Matt Kaeberlein proposes testing this hypothesis
Overstated longevity claims may hinder funding for aging research, and Matt Kaeberlein proposes testing this hypothesis
On August 22, biogerontologist Matt Kaeberlein wrote that bold claims about extending human life may undermine confidence in the evidence and make aging research harder to fund. Investor Karl Pfleger suggested testing this relationship against historical examples.
In a detailed post, Kaeberlein argues that geroscience, the study of the biology of aging, depends on two conditions: sufficient funding to conduct the work and evidence that other researchers are willing to trust. “Faster progress requires both resources and rigorous science,” he writes.
This year, Kaeberlein visited offices in the US Congress four times. In three of those meetings, people who had already heard of aging research associated it with hype and “snake oil.” Before he could discuss new research, he first had to bring the conversation back to whether the evidence was trustworthy.
Kaeberlein traces this concern to Sirtris, a biomedical company that GSK announced it would acquire for $720 million in 2008. In his view, the inflated expectations surrounding Sirtris made it harder for aging research to attract resources for years afterward.
Karl Pfleger, an investor in rejuvenation startups, suggests testing this relationship against historical examples. He says that his team often meets people who are learning for the first time that aging research exists at all. The field must introduce itself to new audiences while also answering for its reputation among those who have already heard of it.
Pfleger proposes comparing Sirtris with the optimism expressed in 1970: “we will cure cancer by 1976.” The relevant question is how funding trajectories changed after such ambitious promises. In his response, Kaeberlein suggests accounting for the scale of the claims, how well the evidence supported them, and the political context: cancer research had broad legislative support at the time.
Comparable cases would need to connect the promises with research outcomes and with subsequent changes in funding, political attention, and confidence in the evidence.