The study, initiated by Prof. Vadim Gladyshev from Harvard University - one of the most important centres for longevity research in the world - was conducted in collaboration with scientists from Stanford University, University of California Berkeley, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford and many others. Among the co-authors of the analysis is Weronika Prusisz, founder and CEO of Molecooles, an independent Polish centre for the popularisation and analysis of the molecular biology of skin aging.
The survey reached more than 100 actively publishing researchers: ERC and NIH grant winners, leaders of teams developing cellular reprogramming, authors of breakthrough papers on senolytics and Yamanaka factors. All of them spend every day fighting the very process they are trying to stop or reverse. One would assume that at least the most basic issues enjoy broad agreement. The reality turned out to be exactly the opposite.
Key questions - zero majority answers
Just a few of the questions that produced completely scattered responses:
- Is aging a disease that should be treated, or a natural biological process?
- When does it begin - already in fetal life, during the reproductive period, or only after reproduction ends?
- What is the dominant cause - accumulation of DNA and protein damage, epigenetic changes, chronic inflammation, or an evolutionary trade-off between reproduction and longevity?
- What exactly does “rejuvenation” mean - a full reversal of the biological clock to a youthful state, or merely slowing/stopping further deterioration?
Not a single question received even a simple majority (>50%). In some cases the answers ranged from the extreme (“aging begins at conception”) to the opposite extreme (“aging begins only after menopause/andropause”). Moreover, respondents were almost evenly split on whether a consensus is even necessary.
Why this matters?
Theoretical disagreements would be harmless if they didn’t translate directly into practice. Today, dozens of completely different strategies are being pursued in parallel in laboratories worldwide:
- Some teams are betting everything on full cellular reprogramming (OSKM) to literally “reset” biological age.
- Others focus on clearing senolytics (dasatinib + quercetin, fisetin, navitoclax) to clear senescent “zombie” cells.
- Still others see chronic inflammation and immune-system hyperactivity as the primary driver.
- And there are those who believe the key lies in mitochondrial repair, telomere extension, or proteostasis.
Each of these paths consumes hundreds of millions of dollars annually from both public grants and private investors (Google Ventures, Altos Labs, Calico). Without a common denominator, comparing results between labs is like comparing apples with oranges or sometimes with jet engines.
What do the authors propose?
The paper does not stop at diagnosing the problem. The authors - including Weronika Prusisz - put forward concrete recommendations that could become a turning point for the entire field:
- Annual, open consensus workshops (modelled on those that standardised the definitions of AIDS and sepsis in the 1980s and 1990s).
- Creation of an international database of standardised aging biomarkers (today every lab uses its own).
- Deployment of artificial intelligence tools to simulate and integrate data from different aging models.
- Inclusion of philosophers of science, ethicists, and health economists in the discussion - because “what do we actually want to achieve?” is just as important as “how do we achieve it?”
As Weronika Prusisz puts it:
“We already have technologies that can reverse biological age in mice by ~30%. But until we agree on what that age actually is and what exactly we are fighting against, it will be extremely difficult to translate those successes to humans. This study shows that the biggest challenge is not the lack of tools - it is the lack of a common language.“
Weronika Prusisz
Summary
The science of aging is in a paradoxical situation: never before have we had such a powerful arsenal of methods, yet never before have we been so far from agreement on the goal itself. The PNAS Nexus publication is not an indictment of the field - it is a call for scientific maturity. History teaches us that the greatest breakthroughs happen precisely when researchers manage to sit down at one table and agree on the rules of the game.
Full text of the article (in English) is available here:
https://academic.oup.com/pnasnexus/article/3/12/pgae499/7913315
#THE #FUTURE #OF #BEAUTY #IS #BI0H4CK3D!
DEC 12 / 2025