What if aging isn’t a slow decline, but a program we are only beginning to decode? What if a single molecular signal could rewrite the timeline of our lives? Steve Horvath – the scientist whose clock reshaped how we measure biological age – believes we may be closer to real interventions than most people think. In a field long dominated by speculation, he sees patterns and the possibility of genuine human impact. But how far are we from drugs that truly slow aging? And are today’s workforce norms ready for tomorrow’s longer lives? One of the world’s most influential aging researchers answers the questions we have all been quietly asking.
Your epigenetic clocks have reshaped how we think about biological age. Was there a specific moment in your research when you realized “This will fundamentally change aging science”?
When I developed the very first epigenetic clock for saliva back in 2011, I realized almost immediately that it would change everything. As I analyzed the data, I saw this remarkably strong effect of age on methylation, and it was clear to me right away that such a powerful signal had to be important. I was trained as a biostatistician, so I had a strong sense of whether a finding was just noise or a real biological signal. In this case, the distinction was instantaneous.
What is one insight from the clocks that changed your own view of aging the most?
There have been many recent insights. For example, I am very excited about GLP-1 receptor agonists right now. They are widely used as weight-loss drugs and for diabetes, and they also appear to slow aging at the molecular level – both in terms of epigenetics and transcriptomics. I am very excited about that. Of course, all of this still requires validation, but the current results look very encouraging. As for how long it will take until we get that validation, I think it will happen very soon – likely within a matter of months. Many people are working on it. It is a hot, highly discussed topic, and I have already seen preprints on Bioarchive and conference talks addressing it, so the evidence is starting to accumulate.
If you could redesign one assumption the public has about aging, what would you change first?
I think people should not be forced into retirement. There is clear discrimination against older individuals, and if I could change one assumption, it would be precisely this: the way society treats older people. For example, many companies are reluctant to hire older workers, and I believe that is a serious mistake. Older people may be slightly slower – there is no doubt about that – but they bring a great deal of experience. They often have an excellent work attitude and mature work habits. And many older people genuinely want to continue working, so they should not be pushed into retirement. If they want to retire, let them retire – this should be about freedom.
Society must shift its attitudes toward older individuals. We should not have arbitrary age cut offs such as sixty-five after which people are forced to give up on their purpose in life.
If people could do only one thing to age better, based on your data, what would it be?
Stop smoking immediately and avoid diabetes. In other words, if you have high glucose levels, bring them down. Make sure to monitor your blood pressure carefully. That is extremely important. If you want to live a healthy and long life, make sure your blood pressure is in a good range.
Which scientific “paradox” in your work has taught you the most about how aging really works?
For me, the discovery of what we call universal aging clocks – clocks that apply to all mammalian species – has been especially insightful. We have aging and epigenetic clocks that work in bats, pigs, humans, and mice.
To me, that was completely unexpected. Because it shows that parts of aging are conserved across species and therefore aging must be, at least to some extent, programmed.
There seems to be some kind of developmental program that is related to aging at least in mammalian species. Most people think aging is simply the accumulation of noise or entropy, but these universal epigenetic clocks demonstrate that certain aspects of aging are programmed.
What is one question about aging you are personally most impatient to answer?
The question I am most impatient to answer is what can actually be done about aging in humans, because so many people study aging in mice, while what we truly need are interventions that we and our parents can take to prevent disease. I am frustrated by how much money has been spent – billions of dollars – while progress has remained slow, but hopefully that will change.
We need more data from human clinical trials. Many trials are being conducted for specific diseases, but what we need to study is whether these interventions also affect biomarkers of aging, such as epigenetic clocks or proteomics clocks. For example, if a company studies an anti-diabetic drug, they should also evaluate molecular biomarkers of aging to determine whether the same drug actually rejuvenates various organs.
Prof. Dr. Steve Horvath
If we revisit this conversation in 2035, what do you hope will be the biggest shift in how we talk about getting older?
I hope that by 2035 we will have identified at least one drug that genuinely slows the human aging process. My hope is that we will have at least one intervention with strong effects in humans. We already have interventions in mice – such as caloric restriction – that clearly provides benefits but these approaches do not translate well to humans. What I hope for is a proven human intervention.
Do you think we will ever reach a point where “age” becomes a negotiable number – something we update, like a phone’s operating system?
At some point in the distant future, we will probably have much tighter control over aging, but that remains science fiction for many years to come.
If you could share just one message with our readers about aging, what would it be?
A hopeful message. Many scientists and companies are working on slowing aging and preventing disease. Rejuvenation research is a scientifically rigorous and well-funded field. Hopefully, the field will develop effective drugs. My message is: hang in there.
Author: Révész Bogi
(Featured image: Prof. Dr. Steve Horvath)
