Ilia Stambler, historian of our longevity science community, is in illustrious company in the author list for this open access position paper. Regular readers will recall that the World Health Organization (WHO) is among the most conservative and hidebound of institutions when it comes to the development of means to treat aging. The WHO positions on aging studiously avoid any mention of the idea that aging can be changed at all through medical science. This is somewhere between ridiculous and outrageous, given what is going on in the labs and clinical development today. More activist members of the scientific community have, accordingly, berated and advocated by turn in journal articles these past few years.
Should a broken system be changed from within, or should it be rejected entirely and worked around? In my experience, the latter approach is the one more likely to produce change, but as a general rule far more effort goes towards the first. We can speculate as why this might be the case. Perhaps because those people most able to identify and articulate the problem in question tend to be experienced with, embedded in, and thus
Article originally posted at