Bridging Gaps in Healthy Longevity: Insights from the JPMorgan Conference

Image: Unsplash

San Francisco in January can be a delightful change from London and New York, and I wrote this in transit between 15 degrees and sunshine and 0 degrees and snow. But more important than the sun, welcome as it is, is the chance that the annual JPMorgan Health Conference gives to ‘take the temperature’ of the world of life sciences, biotech, and pharmaceuticals, and to rub shoulders with its leaders and commentators.

2025 was a reasonably upbeat JPM, but I found a couple of interesting omissions in the presentations and discussions over the week. Firstly, and rather curiously, there was little or no mention of the transformation that AI seems almost certain to bring to almost every step in the value chain. While some enterprises, like InSilico Medicine and Verily, exist solely to apply AI to drug discovery and medicine, the broader industry didn’t appear to be gearing up for the dramatic changes AI promises in the efficiency and effectiveness of turning biological insight into better health.

The second gap was a lack of real focus on prevention and healthy longevity. Although health systems are beginning to call for preventive interventions – the only real answer to the onrush of age-related disease – there were few signs of an emerging industry to meet those needs. One dramatic exception, however, is the rise of GLP-1 agonists, with the stock prices of Novo Nordisk and Lilly soaring due to drugs like Ozempic, Wegovy, and their follow-ons. This class of therapies, while treating the specific condition of obesity, demonstrates their broader health impact by reducing risks of diabetes, cardiovascular events, and potentially neurodegeneration.

A Bright Spot: Healthy Longevity Workshop

A highlight of the week was a workshop chaired by Gordon Lithgow of the Buck Institute, focused on healthy longevity, at the Biotech Showcase. The session involved leaders from Rubedo Life Sciences, eGenesis, clock.bio, and Jevena Therapeutics. Much of the discussion centered on how therapies targeting aging could achieve regulatory success and generate revenues. The consensus was that companies developing such therapies need to first focus on treating a diagnosed disease.

However, I believe we need to work towards broader acceptance that slowing bodily aging can prevent or delay disease, and that this approach can create multi-billion-dollar markets, like those for GLP-1s. To achieve this, we need a clear, step-by-step path forward for healthy longevity therapies:

• Identify measurable mechanisms of aging, ideally with causative links to disease, to target.

• Demonstrate clear links between these mechanisms and the emergence of specific diseases, leveraging longitudinal biobanks and medical records.

• Educate both industry and regulators on how medicines that reduce the onset of chronic diseases can become viable, preventative therapies.

Interestingly, we already accept developing entire classes of drugs to reduce risks like blood pressure and cholesterol levels that can lead to cardiovascular events, even though their individual impact on disease reduction can be relatively small.

Language and Framing Matter

Another important reflection is the role of language and framing. Does labeling this field "longevity science" make it easier—or harder—for the public, policymakers, and pharma to embrace the value of preventive therapies that slow aging and delay or defeat chronic disease?

This is one of the critical questions I’ve been reflecting on in my work. In my latest interview with Michael Ringel for the Healthy Longevity Newsletter series, he shared valuable insights on gaps in aging biology and public and political engagement that align closely with these themes.

I’d welcome your thoughts on these questions, and they will continue to guide my discussions with thought leaders in the space.