IndiaPosted at: Sep 16 2026 1:35PM

Can humans live longer and better? Scientists seek the answer

(UNI SPECIAL)
Deepak Sapra
New Delhi, Sep 16 (UNI) Twelve scientists. One extraordinary question: can human beings live longer — and, more importantly, live better?
The question is no longer confined to science fiction. Across laboratories, hospitals, and long-running studies of human lives, researchers are trying to understand what ageing really is, whether it can be slowed, and perhaps even whether parts of it can be reversed.
The approaches could hardly be more different. Some scientists are attempting to reset the biological clock inside cells. Others are developing ways to measure the ageing of individual organs. Some believe that important interventions may already exist in the form of exercise, nutrition, and inexpensive medicines. Others are concentrating on proving that purported longevity treatments actually work.
The most audacious proposition is that ageing itself may be reversible.
In 2006, Japanese scientist and Nobel laureate Shinya Yamanaka demonstrated that a mature adult cell could be reprogrammed into a younger, more flexible state. The discovery suggested that the biological clock may not simply move inexorably in one direction. It might, under certain circumstances, be reset.
Scientists such as David Sinclair and Juan Carlos Belmonte have taken that idea further, exploring whether cellular rejuvenation can be achieved in living humans. Their work is moving into areas including the eye, ageing tissue, and failing organs. The eye is a particularly cautious starting point because it is relatively isolated from the rest of the body. If an intervention produces an unexpected result, the consequences may be easier to contain.
The contrast between the ambition and the caution is revealing. The objective is revolutionary, but the science remains deliberately measured. The search for longevity is not simply a race towards immortality; it is an attempt to discover how far biological limits can safely be altered.
Before ageing can be repaired, however, it must be measured.
Tony Wyss-Coray has developed approaches that can assess the biological age of individual organs, suggesting that the brain, heart and kidneys may age at different rates within the same person. Such research could fundamentally change the way ageing is understood. Instead of assigning one biological age to an individual, scientists may increasingly think in terms of multiple ageing processes occurring simultaneously throughout the body.
Uri Alon has revisited decades-old twin studies to examine the extent to which genetics determines lifespan. Nir Barzilai has spent years studying centenarians, searching for the genetic characteristics that allow some people to reach 100 while retaining relatively good health.
This is the less glamorous side of longevity research. There are no miracle cures and few dramatic headlines. Yet it may prove to be among the most important. Without a reliable understanding of where and how ageing occurs, there is no way to establish whether a treatment has genuinely slowed it.
Other researchers are asking a more immediate question: what can be done now?
An authority in geroscience and precision geromedicine, Gabrielle Lyon’s message is straightforward. Muscle is not merely a matter of appearance; it is a critical organ involved in communication with the brain, liver, and pancreas. Maintaining muscle mass, particularly with resistance exercise and adequate protein, becomes increasingly important with age.
Her concern is that the pursuit of rapid weight loss through GLP-1 drugs could sometimes result in the loss of muscle alongside fat — potentially solving one problem while creating another.
Barzilai, meanwhile, believes some answers may already be sitting in medicine cabinets. A number of old, inexpensive, and approved drugs could conceivably have applications in longevity. The challenge is to subject those possibilities to rigorous clinical testing rather than allowing enthusiasm to outrun evidence.
That question of evidence runs through much of the field.
Andrea Maier is addressing one of the less visible weaknesses in longevity research: trial design. By focusing on people whose particular organs are ageing faster than the rest of their bodies, researchers can potentially conduct more meaningful tests of whether an intervention is actually changing the ageing process.
Jamie Justice has imposed an even tougher standard through a $101 million competition designed to demand measurable results. The challenge is simple: demonstrate the restoration of ten years of function within one year. If researchers cannot produce meaningful evidence, the claims of a breakthrough become considerably less persuasive.
It is an attempt to distinguish serious science from the enormous amount of noise surrounding the modern longevity industry.
Yet perhaps the most profound lessons come from research that has little to do with biotechnology.
Robert Waldinger leads the Harvard Study of Adult Development, which began in 1938 and has followed generations of people for nearly nine decades. Its findings point repeatedly towards the importance of strong human relationships. People who maintain meaningful connections tend to remain healthier for longer, while loneliness can become a significant burden on both physical and mental well-being.
Myechia Minter-Jordan has sought to broaden the conversation further, arguing that ageing should not be treated as somebody else’s problem. It is a universal human experience. Francesca Duncan’s research into ovarian ageing makes another important point: ignoring the biology of half the population cannot produce a complete science of longevity.
Taken together, these different approaches suggest that the future of longevity may not be defined by a single breakthrough.
There may eventually be drugs that slow ageing, therapies that rejuvenate cells, and technologies that allow doctors to measure the biological age of every major organ. But the most important longevity interventions may also be remarkably ordinary.
A friend to meet, or at least call. A weight to lift. A nutritious meal. A good night’s sleep. A small act of kindness, compassion or empathy.
The science of ageing is racing ahead. The larger challenge may be ensuring that human beings do not become so obsessed with extending life that they forget what makes a longer life worth living.
(The author is the CEO of a leading Hyderabad-based pharmaceutical company. Views are personal.)
UNI XC RSA

Tags: #Can humans live longer and better? Scientists seek the answer

India rolls out digital tools to track climate action

16 Sep 2026 | 2:35 PM

New Delhi, Sep 16 (UNI) India on Wednesday launched a digital portal for voluntary Net Zero commitments by entities and a dashboard to track implementation of the National Action Plan on Climate Change (NAPCC), pitching the platforms as tools to improve transparency and monitoring of climate action.

UPI MDR explained: Will customers be charged from October 15?

16 Sep 2026 | 1:44 PM

New Delhi, Sep 16 (UNI) New rules governing the Merchant Discount Rate (MDR) on certain UPI transactions have raised concerns among users over whether digital payments will become chargeable from October 15, 2026. However, the new framework does not impose any direct charges on consumers for making UPI payments.

Can humans live longer and better? Scientists seek the answer

16 Sep 2026 | 1:35 PM

Kharge accuses Modi govt of ‘capitulation’ amid US tariff threat

16 Sep 2026 | 1:11 PM

New Delhi, Sep 16 (UNI) Congress President and Leader of the Opposition in the Rajya Sabha Mallikarjun Kharge on Wednesday sharpened his attack on Prime Minister Narendra Modi over escalating India-US trade tensions, alleging that the government had repeatedly yielded to pressure from Washington and warning that exporters, farmers and other sections of the Indian economy could face the consequences.