| Kind of misleading title after clicking through: > Costly new longevity drugs could help the wealthy live 120 years or more – but will everyone else die young? Drug research is costly, but it's not wealthy benefactors of the clinical application that pay for it. Some research is privately funded, much is government funded but it's also costly to fail to pay for it. The age gap due to wealth discussed in the article is not related to the cost to the individual of drug research and development. Once the research is done, most drugs become inexpensive to produce and if they prevent the burden of ageing on healthcare and society. Reason to fund gerontology research if it decreases healthcare expenditure. The then minor cost could be subsidised and there would be little argument in limiting its availability beyond that of aspirin and clean drinking water. The current longevity gap due to poverty/environment discussed isn't a reason to discount increases in healthspan/lifespan that might benefit the rich more immediately. Gerontology/drug research is not mutually exclusive of improving access to education, mental health and reducing pollution etc. |