Aubrey de Grey Warns: This Could Delay Longevity Escape Velocity

Has AI changed LEV predictions? What investments are you missing out on in the biotech sector?

We sat down with Aubrey de Grey to get his latest insights on aging, biotechnology, and the impact of AI. From funding challenges to scientific breakthroughs, here's what he had to say about the future of longevity

It makes sense for investors to donate to me because if they do, I'm going to get breakthroughs that will make the industry explode, and the return on their actual investments will be bigger and sooner.

You Predicted a 50% Chance of Achieving LEV in our Lifetime. Has AI Affected Your Prediction?

Justification for missed timeframe of LEV

Aubrey has been making time predictions for longevity escape velocity (LEV) for over 20 years. Initially, he estimated a 50% chance of reaching LEV within 25 years. However, due to lack of funding, progress slowed, and by 2014, his prediction remained unchanged, he still estimated 20-25 years, so the late 2030s.

A major turning point came with the publication of The Hallmarks of Aging in 2013, a restatement of his 7 distinct kinds of damage. This brought legitimacy and increased funding, helping stabilize predictions. As a result, he still estimates LEV could be possible in the late 2030s.

The 7 categories of damage are:

• Cell loss

• Cell senescence

• Extracellular protein cross-linking

• Nuclear DNA mutations

• Mitochondrial DNA

• Harmful junk buildup inside cells

• Harmful junk buildup outside cells

Did he account AI?

Aubrey said he didn’t specifically take AI into account but what he did take into account was the frequency of miracles.

I didn’t know machine learning would explode, or that CRISPR and iPS cells would emerge, but I knew that discoveries of that magnitude tend to happen at a certain frequency.

AI in Longevity, is it a Buzzword?

Aubrey confirmed that AI is making a real impact in longevity research, though not directly at his organization. They are currently developing an LLM-based system for literature monitoring, but that’s the extent of their AI use.

However, across the field, AI is proving valuable:

• Drug discovery: Companies like Insilico Medicine are successfully identifying new drugs using AI to detect patterns in existing data.

• Protein folding: Tools like AlphaFold and the emerging AlphaProteo are making protein structure predictions faster and more precise, accelerating biomedical research.

• General biotech advancements: Many of the breakthroughs benefiting aging research, such as AI-driven protein modeling, are also advancing medicine as a whole.

Despite these successes, skepticism remains. Aubrey noted that AI hype has led to backlash, similar to what we see with ChatGPT's hallucination problem.

Tech Hype vs. Real Progress: Is Longevity Headed for a Market Correction?

Aubrey believes the biggest challenge in aging research isn’t technological limitations but communication. Many researchers avoid making timeframe predictions because they fear that missed expectations will lead to backlash.

However, he argued that this fear is misplaced. He pointed to the War on Cancer in the 1970s as an example of how overly optimistic predictions didn’t lead to a funding collapse.

Nixon tripled the budget of the National Cancer Institute, and look what happened. Not a lot. The rate of progress was much more modest than predicted. But there was no backlash. Not a single year has gone by where the National Cancer Institute had its budget cut.

Aubrey also warned that companies going public (IPO) too soon could be a real risk for the longevity industry:

I do think that the temptation to IPO is a problem. I think companies just go public too soon, they don't have enough money, so they are subject to short selling. (That’s what happened to AgeX.)

Are the Hallmarks of Aging the Right Framework?

You mentioned that the Hallmarks of Aging paper played a role in attracting funding and making aging research more tangible. However, some researchers, like Richard Miller, challenge the framework.

Aubrey acknowledged that there may be more hallmarks of aging than what was listed in the 2013 paper

So of course, Rich is completely right in saying there may be more and more hallmarks but he believes the core classification from his original 2000 framework has stood the test of time.

The Hallmarks paper isn’t really a classification of aging, it’s a classification of the literature. My 7-point classification from 2000, however, is a classification of aging itself. And I haven’t had to add any more categories since then.

He was dismissive about Richard Miller’s skepticism about the Hallmarks framework:

Richard Miller is one of the most dogmatic gerontologists. He believes every idea in aging is either obviously true, or obviously wrong, or due to him. So not a lot of people really listen to him any more.

Is your damage repair strategy still the best approach to achieving LEV?

You had a discussion with Gero’s Peter Fedichev last September about whether we can truly stop aging or if we need actual rejuvenation. Did that conversation change your perspective?

No.

Aubrey said that Peter Fedichev made a broadly correct distinction between two types of aging:

• Chemically detectable aging – Changes we can measure and repair, such as protein damage and cellular senescence.

• Chemically undetectable aging – Changes like random mutations and epigenetic modifications, which lack clear markers, making them harder to identify and reverse.

Peter suggested that chemically undetectable aging might be impossible to fix, but Aubrey disagreed, pointing to partial reprogramming as proof that cells can reset without knowing the "correct" state.

We don't need an external blueprint of what’s right or wrong. Partial reprogramming shows that cells can rejuvenate themselves.

For Aubrey, this reinforces the idea that aging is reversible, even if we don’t fully understand every molecular detail.

Can We Keep Resetting Aging Indefinitely?

Of course epigenetic reprogramming isn’t going to do the whole job.

Aubrey pointed out that aging consists of many different types of damage, and epigenetic changes are just one part of the picture. Even if we reset cellular identity, other forms of damage, like intracellular waste buildup or DNA mutations, still need to be addressed.

We still can’t fix things like indigestible waste products in cells. But that doesn’t mean reprogramming isn’t valuable, it just means we need to combine it with other therapies.

For Aubrey, longevity research has never been about a single intervention; a comprehensive approach will be necessary.

Do Somatic Mutations Drive Epigenetic Aging?

Some researchers suggest that somatic mutations (random DNA mutations in cells) could be a major driver of epigenetic aging.

Maybe somatic mutations play a role. Maybe Sinclair’s idea about sirtuins is right. I don’t much care. As long as we can fix the damage, it doesn’t matter how it is generated.

He emphasized that we already have ways to reverse epigenetic aging (like partial reprogramming), so arguing over the cause is less important than developing solutions.

Where Should Investors Look for the Biggest Returns in Longevity?

Aubrey said it depends on several things, including how much risk an investor is willing to take and how soon they want returns.

I have this little checklist like, what is your check size? Do you like leading or following? Do you want to do your own scientific diligence. What is your risk comfort? And of course, the answers are completely different from one investor to the next.

He also said that the growth depends on the growth of the entire industry, so it makes sense for investors to donate to him. Even though they won’t get any money back from him, they will get it from their investments

Because if they do, I'm going to get breakthroughs that will make the industry explode, and their return on the actual investments.

Aubrey said this with confidence, referring to his Robust Mouse Rejuvenation project. An initiative aimed at proving that comprehensive rejuvenation is possible in mice. He believes that a demonstration of significant lifespan extension in mice will be a turning point for the field, validating interventions and attracting more funding into longevity research.

Should Longevity Research Collaborate More with Private Companies?

Academia often relies on grants, and many scientists leave for industry to keep working on their projects. Should there be more partnerships between longevity researchers and private companies?

Aubrey strongly supported collaboration, emphasizing that his organization is always looking for partners.

We are really hot for collaborators. Absolutely.

However, he pointed out a challenge: many researchers assume that if they can’t get grant funding, they can simply start a company and attract investors, but that’s not always realistic.

You get researchers who think, ‘Oh, yeah, I’ll just go get investment instead.’ But then investors take one look and realize they couldn’t run a company to save their lives.

Instead, Aubrey sees value in matching scientists with skilled entrepreneurs who can build teams with a clear value proposition. He mentioned that he’s spent years making these kinds of introductions, and now organizations like Longevity Biotech Fellowship (LBF) are taking on that role at a larger scale.

I seed-funded LBF’s retreats to do exactly this, help researchers and entrepreneurs connect.

For Aubrey, stronger academia-industry partnerships are essential for turning breakthroughs into real-world therapies.

Can Pop-Up Cities Accelerate Longevity Research?

Aubrey believes strict regulations are one of the biggest obstacles to progress.

The regulatory regimes in every country are excessively restrictive. The problem is that the public is overly risk-averse.

He gave the example of Jesse Gelsinger, a teenager who died in a gene therapy trial in 1999. That one incident led to a worldwide shutdown of gene therapy clinical trials for over a year.

Think how many deaths will have happened in the long run because of that delay.

To get around this, Aubrey supports the creation of special economic zones for medical innovation, such as Prospera, a private city in Honduras that offers more flexible regulations.

These places can become hubs of medical tourism. And when they succeed, they will pressure governments to modernize regulations.

He also highlighted right-to-try laws in the U.S., which allow terminally ill patients to access experimental treatments. He believes this should be expanded to healthy people who want to avoid getting sick in the first place, as has now happened in Montana.

Some of us would prefer not to get terminally ill in the first place.

For Aubrey, pop-up cities and alternative regulatory frameworks are important for accelerating longevity treatments.

How can the next generation of researchers and students help reach LEV?

Aubrey says people shouldn’t limit themselves to labs that explicitly focus on aging. Many scientists are already working on problems that affect aging, even if they don’t label it that way.

Never believe the headlines of what a lab says it does. In other words, don't restrict yourself to a lab, that says they work on the biology of aging.

He also suggested that students avoid big labs to avoid being in subservient tasks and gain more autonomy.

Prestigious labs tend to be the biggest ones where you have the least autonomy. Go for smaller labs where you’ll have more autonomy and decision-making power.

Finally, he emphasized the mental resilience needed for a PhD, warning that progress can be slow and frustrating.

And of course, the final thing is work on something that you're really passionate about, because PhDs are hard, you know, you're going to have periods of much of the time when you're making no progress and you have to get through those things psychologically.

Whether through AI, gene therapies, or regulatory innovation, the field of longevity research continues to expand. With a wide range of approaches being developed and tested, the industry is still in its early stages. But with the right funding, will accelerate its impact significantly.

As Aubrey put it:

The field is fantastically diverse. There are an awful lot of companies doing an awful lot of different things with different types of technology. And I believe that diversity will ensure the field will not go into a trough.

While challenges remain, progress is being made. The question is not if longevity breakthroughs will happen, but how soon and who will help make them a reality.