Toggle light / dark theme

845 pages in length, the report aims to outline the history, present state and future of the Longevity Industry in the United Kingdom, profiling hundreds of companies, investors, and trends, and offering guidance on the most optimal ways in which UK longevity industry stakeholders, as well as government officials, can work to strengthen the industry, and allow it to reach its full potential as a global longevity science and preventive medicine hub. The report uses comprehensive infographics to distill the report’s data and conclusions into easily understandable portions, and interested readers can get a quick understanding of the report’s main findings and conclusions in its 10-page executive summary.

This special regional case study follows-up on the content and general outline of the Longevity Industry made by our consortium in the previous Longevity Industry Landscape Overviews, including Volume I “The Science of Longevity” (750 pages), and Volume II “The Business of Longevity” (650 pages), published earlier this year.

These ongoing analytical reports are part of a collaborative project by The Global Longevity Consortium, consisting of the Biogerontology Research Foundation, Deep Knowledge Analytics, Aging Analytics Agency and the Longevity. International platform.

Read more

The July 2018 Rejuvenation Roundup is out!


Another month, another series of great news items for healthy life extension enthusiasts! It’s hard to believe that July is already behind us and, with it, the first Lifespan.io conference in New York City; let’s take a look back and review the past month before diving into the next one.

The Rejuvenation Roundup podcast

Starting this month, the Rejuvenation Roundup is available as a podcast! For this great initiative, we owe our thanks to Ryan O’Shea, the man behind Future Grind—a podcast discussing all things future. Our Vice President Oliver Medvedik has already had the honor to be featured in a previous podcast about life extension, but all the topics that Ryan deals with are absolutely exciting, so we highly recommend checking out the other episodes as well!

A discussion about why life extension isn’t selfish.


The topic of life extension is much more debated these days than before. As a result, more people who are not in the field talk about it, and they don’t always do so in praising terms. Articles written by outsiders tend to be conservative at best and fear-mongering at worst, mainly focusing on the potential downsides of life-extending technologies without paying much attention, if any, to the benefits, as if there weren’t any to begin with.

One accusation that is often thrown at life extensionists is that they would be selfish for wanting to extend their lives. It is all too easy to say that all that life extensionists think about is their own benefit while disregarding the common good, but it’s not too difficult to see how this is entirely wrong.

Life extension is about eliminating the suffering caused by the diseases of old age, and at this stage, it is not clear who will actually make it to a world where these diseases are under control; many of today’s rejuvenation advocates might simply die before the world they are trying to build will come into being. I am not trying to say that all rejuvenation advocates do what they do only for others’ sake, because that would not be true, but the opposite claim—that all advocates of life extension are such only for exquisitely selfish reasons—is quite a stretch, to the point of slander. It is no different from claiming that all women’s rights advocates who happen to be women only care about this cause for their own benefit and not at all for their fellow women, and it is equally outrageous.

A new interview on LEAF with biogerontologist Dr. João Pedro de Magalhães.


Today, we have an interview with Dr. João Pedro de Magalhães, the biogerontologist who created and runs senescence.info. In the unlikely event that his name is new to you, we had another interview with him last year, which you can check out here.

How do you think we age; are we programmed to die, do we wear out, or is the truth a mixture of both?

I don’t think we wear out. Humans and complex animals are made of cells and molecules that, by and large, have some turnover; we can replace most of our components, so I don’t think it’s correct to see aging as wearing out, at least not in complex animals like humans. (Please see here.) That said, I do think that some forms of cumulative damage contribute to the aging process, such as DNA damage. I also think that there are programmatic aspects to aging. That is, I think that genetic programs coordinating some aspects of growth and development persist into adulthood and become detrimental as forms of antagonistic pleiotropy. It is probably a combination of molecular damage and the inadvertent actions of genetic programs that causes aging.

The year is 2050 and researchers have developed an advanced method of replacing 99% of your brain’s functions for digital software/hardware. The process is slow to ensure individuals aren’t simply making copies of themselves. But in return, “digital immortality” has been achieved.


In a future of mind-uploaded “immortals,” will we achieve unlimited freedom or will we simply become slaves to a private entity which owns the data that makes up our own digital minds?

Read more

Published in Scientific Reports, this study is the first to provide evidence of new neuron formation—and the presence of stem cells—in the leopard gecko brain.


University of Guelph researchers have discovered the type of stem cell allowing geckos to create new brain cells, providing evidence that the lizards may also be able to regenerate parts of the brain after injury.

This finding could help in replacing human brain cells lost or damaged due to injury, aging or disease.

“The brain is a complex organ and there are so few good treatments for brain injury, so this is a very exciting area of research,” said Prof. Matthew Vickaryous in the Department of Biomedical Sciences at the Ontario Veterinary College (OVC).

Can technology help us achieve near-everlasting life?


Entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley and beyond are attempting to disrupt what has long been seen as one of the only inevitabilities of life: death.

Computer scientists and artificial intelligence specialists are developing programs that allow people to theoretically avoid death, opening the door to near-everlasting life as well as a myriad of ethical and philosophical questions.

Read more

August 17th sees our friends at UC Berkeley hosting an aging research summit which is shaping up to be pretty interesting.


Please join us for a day of speakers, awards, poster sessions, and valuable networking focused on cutting-edge aging research and technologies. Our aim is no less than to reimagine aging and elder care. A percentage of the proceeds from this event will support scholarships for students interested in research on aging & elder care…

Read more

It’s almost the weekend and what better way to celebrate than a nice long interview with one of the Heroes of aging research? Today we bring you a mega-interview with Dr. Aubrey de Grey.


Today we have an interview with Dr. Aubrey de Grey from the SENS Research Foundation. This interview conducted by Yuri Deigin was originally published in Russian language and he has kindly translated it into English so our audience can enjoy it too.

Yuri: Aubrey, thank you very much for agreeing to this interview. Why don’t we dive right in? I am sure everybody asks you this: how and when did you become interested in aging, and when did you decide to make it your life’s mission to defeat it?

Aubrey de Grey: I became interested in aging and decided to work on it in my late 20s, so, in the early 1990s. The reason I became interested was because that was when I discovered that other biologists were almost all not interested in it. They did not think that aging was a particularly important or interesting question. I had always assumed, throughout my whole life, that aging was obviously the world’s most important problem. I thought that people who understood biology would be working on it really hard. Then, I discovered that wasn’t true and that hardly any biologists were working on it. The ones that were weren’t doing it very well, not very productively as far as I could see. I thought I’d better have a go myself, so I switched fields from my previous research area, which was artificial intelligence.