Aging’s True Tactics

New research pins the maximum length of human life

Credit: Scientific American Health & Medicine, Vol. 3, Issue No. 4

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


For many cultures, including the U.S. and China, aging is a particular anathema. The global market for antiaging products alone is valued at more than $50 billion a year and is expected to balloon to more than $83 billion in less than a decade. The demand to slow aging—through mostly ineffectual pills, serums or creams--is real. But our understanding of how the human body ages is still nascent, one could argue. In fascinating new findings, a team of researchers determined that an ultimate limit to human life exists, mostly because the body’s ability to bounce back from disease or other disruptions and reestablish a so-called equilibrium declines over time. So aging may be less about how quickly the body degrades and more about the body’s overall resilience (see “Humans Could Live up to 150 Years, New Research Suggests”).

For now one of the biggest threats to human life remains the COVID-19 pandemic. With nearly two billion doses administered, Nature reporter Heidi Ledford profiles everything we have learned so far about these new medicines (see “Six Months of COVID Vaccines: What 1.7 Billion Doses Have Taught Scientists”). And mRNA technology may open the door for new treatments against an array of diseases beyond COVID, including cancer (see “After COVID-19 Successes, Researchers Push to Develop mRNA Vaccines for Other Diseases”). Here’s to your long and healthy life.

Andrea Gawrylewski is chief newsletter editor at Scientific American. She writes the daily Today in Science newsletter and oversees all other newsletters at the magazine. In addition, she manages all special editions and in the past was the editor for Scientific American Mind, Scientific American Space & Physics and Scientific American Health & Medicine. Gawrylewski got her start in journalism at the Scientist magazine, where she was a features writer and editor for "hot" research papers in the life sciences. She spent more than six years in educational publishing, editing books for higher education in biology, environmental science and nutrition. She holds a master's degree in earth science and a master's degree in journalism, both from Columbia University, home of the Pulitzer Prize.

More by Andrea Gawrylewski
SA Health & Medicine Vol 3 Issue 4This article was published with the title “Aging's True Tactics” in SA Health & Medicine Vol. 3 No. 4 ()
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican082021-iYwm3T28aET41AGeQdF5J

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe