Longevity researchers often say their goal is to extend “healthspan” rather than lifespan — in other words, to help people stay healthier for longer without necessarily making them live longer. A new opinion paper in GeroScience argues that this has become a misleading cliché.
The authors, David Gems, Ekaterina Iijima and João Pedro de Magalhães, point out that research in animals has already shown that biological ageing can sometimes be slowed, producing increases in both healthy life and overall lifespan. They argue that if similar treatments eventually work in humans, extending life should not be treated as an undesirable side effect. Medicine already accepts many treatments that save lives without restoring perfect health, because living longer with some health problems is often preferable to dying sooner.
The researchers distinguish between traditional geriatric medicine, where a major goal is to reduce the amount of illness and disability experienced towards the end of life, and biogerontology, which investigates whether the ageing process itself can be slowed or reversed. In their view, the second field should be willing to state openly that postponing death is one of its legitimate aims, alongside preventing disease and maintaining good health.
Ideally, future anti-ageing treatments would give people many more healthy years while keeping periods of frailty and illness as short as possible. But the authors argue that “healthspan, not lifespan” sets up a false choice. The real aim should be to improve quality of life while also saving lives — and, where ageing research makes it possible, enabling people to live longer.
Opinion paper published in GeroScience 07 October 2026: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11357-026-02577-1
