NEWS

REPORT OUTLINE
Yasmín Castillo
8-878-1924

Greeting

Hello everyone! Good afternoon, Welcome to Yas News Reports, it’s (DATE AND TIME), I’m Yasmin Castillo.
Today we have an interesting topic to discuss.

Opener

What would you do if you were seventy-five years older than the average life expectancy to live longer?

A Harvard researcher and biotech founder David Sinclair joined The New York Times DealBook Dialogue for a
call about the “Business of Longevity” and in this newsletter written on October 17th, Lauren Hirsch highlights
key points.

Topic statement

Investors including Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos, and Peter Thiel have spent billions on the business of living
longer. Aiming to give people more time to spend with loved ones, achieve goals and enjoy new experiences.

Preview

In April 28th’s newsletter of The New York Times “How Long Can We Live?” New research is intensifying the
debate with profound implications. Jean-Marie Robine, a French demographer, gerontologist, author, and
journalist, and Michel Allard in 1990, not long after they began conducting a nationwide study of French
centenarians, they found Jeanne Calment, the oldest verified supercentenarian of all time with whom they
collaborated. Calment inspired national and, eventually, international news stories. Journalists, doctors, and
scientists began crowding her nursing-home room, eager to meet la doyenne de l’humanité.

BODY

Main idea of news story

Despite extending life seems to be so promising it brings up a host of thorny societal, economic, and
philosophical issues. Therefore, in this newsletter are some key takeaways from the talk of the DealBook with
Dr. Sinclair who is a Harvard biologist who has been studying aging and how to slow it for more than a decade.
He is also a founder of at least 12 biotech start-ups and sits on the boards of several others.

Details

1. The FDA does not consider aging as a disease, there’s not a clear regulatory pathway and this is why
Dr. Sinclair believes they should because longevity research would work differently since they can start
treating it, and thus they will have much greater gains on health span.

2. Living longer could have broad economic benefits, but there may be other costs, accounting for both
money saved in categories such as sick care and additional spending by people who are living healthier
longer. Another economic concern is the personal costs to longevity, especially the difficulty of people
to save money for their retirement, living longer would probably mean working longer and people
 won’t be able to retire at the same age, however, Dr. Sinclair argued the money that’s currently
wasted on medical care can be put toward a whole bunch of things.

3. If there were more humans on the planet, there’s always going to be more stress to place on the
environment. Dr. Sinclair believes that a decline in fertility could offset some lifespan increases.

What do you think of that?

4. Dr. Sinclair pointed to innovations in areas like clean energy as possible countermeasures to the
climate burden of a higher population.

Can anyone mention another idea to diminish the climate burden of a higher population?

Thank you for sharing your ideas.

5. According to Dr. Sinclair we are on the first stage of the research I to longevity and there are many
critics of longevity research argue billions of investors have put toward longevity are only focused on
enriching only the wealthy, and that money would be better spent on more immediate issues,
nevertheless, Dr. Sinclair compared to research into longevity to initial work industries like air travel,
which was originally funded by and offered primarily to the wealthy.

Do you agree with Dr. Sinclair? How many years might have to pass before people who are not wealthy
start to benefit from this business?

6. Dr. Sinclair’s goal is to democratize longevity drugs, education, and knowledge.
7. Dr. Sinclair’s personal regimen is a “combination of eating right, living right, exercising” as well as some
supplements.

My reaction

In terms of technology I consider this project innovative because we do for sure need the hope to see our kids
grow, fulfill our goals and live as many experiences as we can, however, I do believe money could be invested
in problems bigger than this, like solving world hunger, poverty, work on the climate change and destruction
of natural resources, find the balance between emerging technologies and global catastrophic risks, solve large
scale and religious conflicts and wars, government accountability and transparency, and corruption, safety,
security, and well-being, lack of education, economic opportunities, and unemployment.

Conclusion

Summarizing The Business of Longevity is not fully developed yet, in spite it seems to be promising and could
have broad economic benefits many issues can be originated from having people living longer, such
as environmental effects, extra work, and more expenses in sickness and healthcare, however, this may
be solved with longevity treatment, eating right, living right, exercising, and other indications to live healthier
longer. Right now scientists and investors are waiting for FDA to approve aging as a disease to get more
progress in longevity treatment and research improving health span.

In my opinion, it’s more important quality not quantity, better explained I consider it is best to have
experienced the most valuable moments than having lived a bunch without meaning. It is imperative to
improve the world situation and lives’ quality before thinking about making them longer.

That’s all the time we have! This was an interesting discussion. Many thanks for giving your ideas.