Reflections of a Pessimistic Gerontologist or Why We Still Do Not Live 1000 Years

The author’s view on the current state of gerontological research is presented. He believes that the widespread departure from the principles of classical gerontology, formulated back in the 20th century, has not been reflected in the works in the field of biology of aging (both theoretical and experimental) in the best way. The neglect of the fundamental principles of gerontological research has led to the fact that, in most works, the classical definition of aging as a set of age-related changes in practically healthy individuals leading to an increase in the rate of mortality is ignored. The emphasis is on assessing the average and maximum life span of the studied organisms, even if they are ageless. Extending the lifetime of such objects cannot be considered a modification of the rate of their aging. It is emphasized that special attention is now being paid to molecular age-related changes, which some gerontologists consider aging, although this is just its possible mechanism or consequence. However, geroprotectors are very often studied exactly by assessing the modification of the rate of such age-related changes. At the same time, as classical gerontology rightly believes, the principles of which the author urges to adhere to, without taking the survival curves of the control and experimental cohorts, it is impossible to draw a correct conclusion about whether the studied compound is a geroprotector. At the same time, an approach to the formation of such cohorts, including an assessment of the minimum required number of organisms in them, as well as the “quality” of their health, is very important. Several gerontological articles that have been published in the most highly ranked scientific journals and, therefore, have attracted much attention of relevant specialists are considered. This attention was expressed, among other things, in the high citation rate of these works, although they were performed with significant violations of the principles of classical gerontology, which were subsequently identified by other researchers. It is also emphasized that, at present, the rating of a scientific journal for many gerontological readers has become much more important than the correctness of the results and ideas presented in the article. A list of methodological problems is given, which, according to the author, not only complicate the situation with modern gerontological research but also make tangible progress in this area practically unattainable.