This commentary on a case considers how clinicians should help patients interpret results of tests that might be personally meaningful but not clinically actionable. Tests of biological age, for example, can easily lead to patient misunderstandings that can increase risks of psychological harm and make age-related discrimination seem justifiable. This commentary suggests that companies offering epigenetic testing should be more transparent about these tests' reliability and limitations.
Advances in public health, medicine, and technology since the mid-19th century have redefined what is considered "natural" for human beings. This article situates contemporary geroscience in that historical context. The development of gerotherapies must be guided by historical insight, ethical foresight, and a commitment to justice. Since extending lifespans has important societal consequences, how aging research will affect future generations should be prioritized. Equitable access to gerotherapies, as well as an emphasis on social responsibility and the influence of community on health and longevity, must remain central to any vision of the future of aging.
