by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Sep 30, 2025 | Advances in Robotics, News, The protagonists of IA
Known as the “Godfather of Artificial Intelligence,” Geoffrey Hinton fears that his creation may surpass human intelligence and explains why “killer robots” are a real and terrifying risk.
Few names carry as much weight in the field of Artificial Intelligence as Geoffrey Hinton’s. Known as the “Godfather of AI,” this British-Canadian scientist was a pioneer in neural networks and deep learning, laying the groundwork for systems that now both amaze and increasingly disturb us — such as ChatGPT and Gemini. Precisely for this reason, his words carry special weight now that, after leaving his position at Google, he has decided to speak openly and without filters about the dangers he himself helped unleash. His warning is clear: AI poses a threat to humanity, and no one can guarantee that we will be able to control it.
He Warns About the Risks of the Technology He Helped Create. But Why Now?
At 75 years old, Hinton explained in a 2023 BBC interview that his departure from Google was due to several reasons: his age, the desire to make his praise of the company sound more credible from the outside, and, above all, the need to “speak freely about the dangers of AI” without affecting his former employer.
Although he believes Google initially acted responsibly by not releasing chatbots prematurely, he thinks the fierce competition triggered by Microsoft’s integration of AI into Bing several years ago has forced a technological arms race where safety takes a back seat. “You can only be cautious when you’re in the lead.”
Hinton’s concern stems not only from AI’s power but also from its fundamentally different nature. “The kind of intelligence we are developing is very different from the intelligence we have,” he says — a view shared by another great thinker in the field, Yuval Noah Harari.
The great advantage (and danger) of digital intelligence, according to Hinton, is its ability to share knowledge instantly. “You have many copies of the same model. All these copies can learn separately, but they share their knowledge instantly. It’s as if we had 10,000 people, and every time one learns something, all the others learn it automatically.” This collective and exponential learning capacity, he argues, is what will soon make them “smarter than us.”
The Three Horsemen of the AI-pocalypse (Short-Term Threats):
While the existential risk of uncontrolled superintelligence is his greatest long-term fear, Hinton identifies three more immediate dangers already emerging:
- Unstoppable Disinformation: The ability to automatically generate fake texts (and images, videos…) indistinguishable from real ones will make it impossible for the average citizen to know what is true. A perfect weapon, he warns, for mass manipulation by “authoritarian leaders.”
- Mass Job Replacement: AI threatens to replace human workers across a wide range of professions, creating unprecedented social and economic disruption.
- “Killer Robots”: The danger that AI systems could become autonomous weapons. Hinton considers it highly likely that actors like “Putin” will choose to give robots the ability to create their own sub-goals to be more efficient. The problem is that one of those sub-goals could be “to gain more power” to better achieve the main mission — a path that could lead to the loss of human control over these lethal weapons. “They will be very interested in creating killer robots,” he warns.
Meanwhile, the question that haunts Hinton is what will happen once these digital intelligences surpass us. “What do we do to mitigate long-term risks? Smarter things than us taking control.”
Other Voices:
Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, and His Most Striking Words: “My son will not grow up smarter than AI.”
There are no guarantees that we can control something fundamentally more intelligent and that learns differently. His public appeal aims to “encourage people to think very seriously” about how to avoid this nightmare scenario. He admits he is not a policy expert but insists that governments must be deeply involved in developing and regulating this technology.
Of course, he also acknowledges AI’s enormous potential benefits, especially in fields like medicine, where a system with access to millions of cases could outperform a human doctor. He does not advocate halting development right now (“in the short term, I think we’re getting many more benefits than risks”), but he does urge that reflection on control be integrated into the process.
The words of Geoffrey Hinton carry immense weight. They come from someone who not only understands the technology from the inside but also helped create it. His message, now free from corporate ties, is an urgent wake-up call. AI is advancing at breakneck speed, competition is accelerating its deployment, but the fundamental question of how to maintain control remains unanswered. The “Godfather’s” warning is clear: we must take this existential challenge very seriously — before it’s too late.
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Sep 27, 2025 | Biotechnology, News
Scientists are analyzing why some tumors block the immune system’s action and how to reverse that process to improve treatments for cancers such as lung and ovarian tumors. Insights from a specialist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), cancer causes nearly 10 million deaths each year due to the uncontrolled growth of cells that invade nearby tissues and spread throughout the body via metastasis. Cancer is one of the world’s leading causes of death, with almost 10 million fatalities recorded in 2020. This disease, characterized by the unrestrained proliferation of abnormal cells, poses a global challenge because of its ability to infiltrate surrounding tissues and metastasize to distant organs. Despite advances in treatments like immunotherapy, many types of tumors, including lung and ovarian cancer, remain difficult to treat.
In this context, Stefani Spranger, a researcher and associate professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), seeks to understand why the immune system often fails to recognize and combat cancer cells. One of science’s main goals is to make these tumors visible to the body so that the organism itself can limit or even eliminate the oncological disease.
The body has natural mechanisms to fight cancer, including T cells, a specialized class of white blood cells capable of detecting and destroying abnormal cells before they become tumors. However, in some cases, certain cancers develop strategies to evade this natural immune response by emitting immunosuppressive signals that weaken or “exhaust” T cells’ ability to react—thus allowing the disease to progress.
According to WHO data, between 30 % and 50 % of cancer cases can be prevented with evidence-based strategies, while others are curable if detected and treated promptly. For this reason, much of today’s immunotherapy research focuses on understanding why certain cancers—such as lung and ovarian—can neutralize immune cell activity. The goal is to develop innovative treatments capable of reversing this blockade and reactivating the immune system’s natural ability to identify, fight, and potentially eliminate the hardest-to-treat tumors.
“We want to understand why our immune system doesn’t recognize cancer,” said Spranger in an MIT press release. Her research seeks to enhance immune responses through vaccines or immune-stimulating molecules known as cytokines—an approach that could represent a significant shift in the treatment of the most challenging cancers.
The Challenge of Reactivating T Lymphocytes
According to the WHO, lung and ovarian cancer are among the leading causes of global mortality and require innovative approaches, as their survival rates depend heavily on effective therapies. The immune system not only protects the body from infections but also has the ability to detect and destroy cancer cells. Yet, some tumor cells manage to escape this surveillance and develop into malignant tumors that emit immunosuppressive signals, exhausting the T cells and leaving them unable to attack.
In recent years, immunotherapy drugs have proven effective in reactivating T cells in certain cancers, such as melanoma. These treatments work by blocking the signals that inhibit T cells, enabling them to attack the tumor again. However, MIT notes that this approach has not shown the same success in other cancers, such as lung and ovarian.
To address this issue, Spranger’s team has developed experimental models that mimic different subtypes of non-small-cell lung cancer—a type of tumor that usually responds poorly to immunotherapy. Their goal is to analyze why the immune system behaves differently depending on the affected tissue.
For example, while immune checkpoint inhibitors can trigger a strong response in skin tissue, their effectiveness is far lower in the lungs. “We are focusing specifically on ovarian cancer and glioblastoma because there are currently no effective treatments for them,” Spranger explained. Her team uses animal models to replicate these tumors’ characteristics and study in detail how the immune system interacts with them—seeking to uncover the mechanisms of immune evasion and test new therapeutic strategies.
According to MIT, resistant tumors create microenvironments that suppress T cell activity, reducing their ability to fight cancer. Spranger aims to identify what changes are needed in these environments to trigger an effective immune response. “We are working to understand exactly what the problem is and then collaborate with engineers to find a good solution,” she stated.
New Strategies for Resistant Tumors
T lymphocytes are white blood cells that can detect and eliminate abnormal cells in the body, but some cancers emit signals that weaken them. One of the most promising approaches, MIT highlights, is the combination of therapies involving cytokines and other immune-stimulating agents to overcome the barriers tumors impose on the immune system.
Spranger’s work emphasizes the importance of the tumor microenvironment, a complex ecosystem composed of immune cells, blood vessels, and other elements surrounding the tumor. This microenvironment can influence the immune system’s effectiveness both positively and negatively. Some tumors, for instance, release substances that inhibit T cells, pushing them into a state of exhaustion known as “exhausted T cells.” The challenge is to reprogram this microenvironment to favor the immune response. This could involve combined therapies that not only attack the tumor but also strengthen the patient’s immune defenses.
The researcher has found that the joint administration of cytokines and checkpoint inhibitors improves T cell activation in the lungs. These molecules stimulate dendritic cells, which are essential for immune regulation. According to Spranger, “They are the conductors of the orchestra for all T cells, although they represent a very small cell population.”
Dendritic cells, though scarce, are crucial because they control and activate the T cells needed to fight resistant tumors, according to MIT. The ability to reprogram the immune system could be a game-changer in cancers that are hard to treat. The WHO notes that lung and ovarian cancer are among the top global causes of death, with survival rates highly dependent on access to effective therapies. “We want to understand what needs to be done in those areas to induce a truly strong antitumor immune response,” the expert emphasized.
Spranger’s approach, which combines basic research with interdisciplinary collaboration, aims to improve therapeutic options and pave the way for more personalized and effective treatments. “We build model systems that resemble each of the different non-small-cell lung cancer subsets that do not respond, and we are trying to get to the bottom of why the immune system does not respond adequately,” she said.
Although many questions remain unanswered, advances in understanding the immune system and its interaction with tumors are opening new possibilities. According to the WHO, between 30 % and 50 % of cancer cases could be prevented through evidence-based strategies, and many tumors can be cured if detected and treated early. However, for advanced or resistant cases like those studied by Spranger, innovative approaches are needed to overcome the current treatment limitations.
Infobae is an Argentine digital media outlet founded in 2002 by businessman Daniel Hadad, originally based in Buenos Aires. (Wikipedia) It is characterized as a native digital newspaper, focused on covering current affairs, economics, politics, culture, technology, and entertainment, both nationally and internationally. (Wikipedia) It has established itself as one of the most-read news sites in the country, leading Argentina’s digital audience rankings. (Infobae) Additionally, it is part of the Infobae Group, which encompasses various media platforms across Argentina and Latin America. (Wikipedia)
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Sep 24, 2025 | Advances in Robotics, Economy and the future of work
Dozens of companies are manufacturing robots that look like humans. One of them is training a machine to be a butler and plans to test it soon in people’s homes
One recent morning, I knocked on the door of a nice two-story house in Redwood City, California. Within seconds, the door was opened by a faceless robot wearing a beige jumpsuit fitted to its slim waist and long legs.
This slender humanoid greeted me with an accent that sounded Scandinavian, and I offered my hand. When our palms met, it said, “I have a firm handshake.”
When the homeowner, a Norwegian engineer named Bernt Børnich, asked for bottled water, the robot turned around, went into the kitchen, and opened the refrigerator with one hand.
Artificial intelligence already drives cars, writes essays, and even writes computer code. Now, humanoids—machines built to resemble humans and powered by AI—are about to move into our homes to help with daily chores. Børnich is the CEO and founder of a startup called 1X. Before the end of the year, his company hopes to place its robot, Neo, in more than 100 homes across Silicon Valley and beyond.
His company is among dozens planning to sell humanoids and introduce them to both homes and businesses. Investors have poured $7.2 billion into more than 50 startups since 2015, according to PitchBook, a research firm that tracks the tech industry. The humanoid frenzy hit a new peak last year, when investments exceeded $1.6 billion. That doesn’t even count the billions that Elon Musk and his electric car company, Tesla, are investing in Optimus, a humanoid they began building in 2021.
Entrepreneurs like Børnich and Musk believe humanoids will one day do much of the physical labor currently done by people, including household chores like cleaning countertops and unloading dishwashers, warehouse jobs like sorting packages, and factory work like assembling cars on production lines.
Simpler robots—such as small robotic arms and autonomous carts—have long shared the workload in warehouses and factories. Now, companies are betting that machines can perform a wider range of tasks by imitating how humans walk, bend, twist, stretch, hold, and generally get things done.
Because homes, offices, and warehouses are already built for humans, these companies argue that humanoids are better equipped to navigate the world than any other kind of robot.
The push toward humanoid labor has been growing for years, fueled by advances in both robotic hardware and AI technologies that allow robots to learn new skills quickly. Yet, these humanoids remain somewhat of a mirage.
For years, videos showing the remarkable dexterity of these machines have circulated online—but they are often being remotely guided by humans. Even simple tasks, like loading a dishwasher, are anything but simple for them.
“There are many videos out there that give a false impression of these robots,” said Ken Goldberg, a robotics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “Although they may look human, they don’t always behave that way.”
Neo said “Hello” with a Scandinavian accent because it was being operated by a Norwegian technician in Børnich’s basement. (Ultimately, the company hopes to build call centers where dozens of technicians would provide remote support to the robots.)
The robot walked independently through the dining room and kitchen, but the technician spoke for Neo and guided its hands remotely using a virtual reality headset and two wireless control sticks. Robots are still learning to move through the world on their own—and they need a lot of help to do so. At least, for now.
‘I Saw a Level of Hardware I Didn’t Think Was Possible’
I first visited the offices of 1X in Silicon Valley nearly a year ago. When a robot named Eve entered the room, opening and closing the door, I couldn’t shake the feeling that this big-eyed robot was actually a person in disguise.
Eve moved on wheels, not legs. And yet, it still seemed human. I thought of Sleeper, the 1973 Woody Allen sci-fi comedy full of robotic butlers.
The company’s engineers had already built Neo, but it hadn’t learned to walk yet. An early version hung from the wall of the company’s lab.
In 2022, Børnich joined a Zoom call with an AI researcher named Eric Jang. They didn’t know each other. Jang, now 30, worked at a robotics lab at Google’s headquarters in Silicon Valley, while Børnich, now 42, ran a startup in Norway called Halodi Robotics.
A potential investor had asked Jang to gather information about Halodi to see if it was worth investing in. Børnich showed off the company’s humanoid, Eve. It was something he had dreamed of building since he was a teenager, inspired—like many robotics specialists—by science fiction (his personal favorite: the 1982 film Blade Runner).
Jang was fascinated by the way Eve moved. He compared the Zoom call to a scene from the sci-fi series Westworld, in which a man attends a cocktail party and is stunned to discover that everyone there is a robot.
“I saw a level of hardware I didn’t think was possible,” Jang said.
The potential investor didn’t invest in Halodi, but Jang quickly convinced Børnich to join forces.
Jang was part of a Google team that taught robots new skills using mathematical systems called neural networks, which enable robots to learn from data representing real-world tasks. After seeing Eve, Jang told Børnich they should apply the same technique to humanoids.
The result was a transatlantic company they renamed 1X. The startup, which has grown to around 200 employees, now has over $125 million in funding from investors including Tiger Global and AI startup OpenAI.
All This Is Learned Behavior
When I returned to the company’s lab about six months after meeting Eve, I was greeted by a walking Neo. It had been taught to walk entirely in the digital world. By simulating real-world physics in a video game–like environment, they could train a digital version of the robot to stand, balance, and eventually take steps.
After months of training this digital robot, they transferred everything it had learned to a physical humanoid.
If I stepped in Neo’s path, it would stop and move around me. If I pushed its chest, it would stay upright. Sometimes it stumbled or seemed unsure what to do, but it could walk around a room like a person.
“All this is learned behavior,” Jang said, as Neo’s steps clicked against the floor. “If we put it in any environment, it should know how to handle it.”
However, training a robot to perform household chores is a completely different challenge.
Because the physics of loading a dishwasher or folding clothes is extremely complex, 1X can’t teach these tasks in a virtual world—they have to collect data inside real homes.
When I visited Børnich’s house a month later, Neo began struggling with the stainless-steel refrigerator door. The robot’s Wi-Fi connection had dropped. But once the hidden technician reset the Wi-Fi, he smoothly guided the robot through its small task. Neo handed me a bottle of water.
I also saw Neo loading clothes into a washing machine, carefully squatting to lift laundry from a basket. And as Børnich and I chatted outside the kitchen, the robot began wiping down the countertops. All of this was done by remote control.
Even when controlled by humans, Neo can drop a cup or struggle to find the right angle to throw an empty bottle into the trash under the sink. Though humanoids have advanced rapidly over the past decade, they are still not as agile as humans. Neo, for example, cannot raise its arms above its head.
For the uninitiated, Neo can also be a bit unsettling—like anything that looks partly human and partly not. Talking to it is especially strange, since you’re actually speaking to a remote technician. It’s like talking to a ventriloquist’s dummy.
‘What We’re Selling Is More of a Journey Than a Destination’
By guiding Neo through household tasks, Børnich and his team can collect data—via cameras and other sensors built into the robot—showing how those tasks are performed. The engineers at 1X can then use this data to expand and refine Neo’s abilities.
Just as ChatGPT can learn to write essays by analyzing online text, a robot can learn to clean windows by identifying patterns in hours of digital video.
Most humanoids—including Musk’s Optimus and similar projects like Apptronik and Figure AI—are designed for warehouses and factories, arguing that these more controlled environments will be easier for robots to handle. But by selling humanoids for use in homes, 1X hopes to gather massive amounts of data that could ultimately teach robots how to manage the chaos of everyday life.
First, though, the company must find people willing to host an early version of a strange new technology—and pay for it.
1X has not yet set a price for these machines, which it manufactures in its own facilities in Norway. Building a humanoid like Neo costs roughly the same as building a small car: tens of thousands of dollars.
To reach its potential, Neo must capture video of what happens inside homes. In some cases, technicians will see what’s happening in real time. Essentially, it’s a robot learning on the job.
“What we’re selling is more of a journey than a destination,” Børnich said. “It’s going to be a bumpy road, but Neo will do truly useful things.”
‘We Want You to Give Us Your Data on Your Terms’
When I asked Børnich how the company would handle privacy once humanoids were inside customers’ homes, he explained that technicians, working from remote call centers, would only take control of the robot if they received the homeowner’s approval through a mobile app.
He also said that data wouldn’t be used to train new systems until at least 24 hours after collection. This would allow 1X to delete videos customers didn’t want the company to use.
“We want you to give us your data on your terms,” Børnich said.
With this data, Børnich hopes to produce a humanoid capable of performing nearly any household chore. That means Neo could one day replace workers who make a living cleaning homes.
But that’s still years away—at best. And given the growing shortage of workers who handle household cleaning and the care of the elderly and children, organizations representing these workers welcome the rise of new technologies for household tasks, as long as companies like 1X build robots that work well alongside humans.
“These tools could make some of the most exhausting and dangerous jobs easier and allow workers to focus on things that only humans can provide,” said Ai-jen Poo, President of the National Domestic Workers Alliance, which represents housekeepers, home care workers, and nannies across the country.
Soon after, Neo began cleaning the tall side windows of the house. Then, as I turned toward Børnich, I heard a crash on the kitchen floor. After an electrical malfunction, Neo had fallen backward and blacked out.
Børnich lifted the robot, as if it were a small teenager, carried it to the living room, and laid it on a chair. Even when passed out, Neo looked human.
Other humanoids I’ve encountered can be intimidating. Neo, standing about 5 feet 6 inches tall and weighing around 64 pounds, is not. Still, I wondered whether it could hurt a pet—or a child—if it fell.
Will people let this machine into their homes? How long will it take to improve its skills? Can it truly free people from their daily chores? These questions remain unanswered. But Børnich presses on.
“There are many people like me,” he said. “They’ve dreamed of having something like this in their homes since they were kids.”
Cade Metz is an American journalist and author specializing in technology, artificial intelligence, and Silicon Valley. He works as a reporter for The New York Times, where he covers topics related to tech companies, advances in AI, robotics, and the social impact of digital innovation. Before joining the Times, he was a correspondent for Wired, and he is the author of the book Genius Makers, which explores the history and key figures behind the rise of modern artificial intelligence. His work stands out for its analytical depth and his ability to translate complex technical concepts into accessible and insightful narratives.
The New York Times es un periódico diario estadounidense fundado en 1851 y con sede en Nueva York, considerado uno de los más influyentes y prestigiosos del mundo. (Wikipedia) Cubre noticias nacionales e internacionales, reportajes de investigación, análisis, cultura, opinión, economía, ciencia y estilo de vida. (Wikipedia) El medio opera tanto en formato impreso como digital, y ha consolidado una gran base de suscriptores online, lo que le permite ejercer un rol clave en el ecosistema mediático contemporáneo. (Wikipedia)
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Sep 21, 2025 | Biotechnology, News
“There are some positive results”
Dr. Brouchkov began his research with the Bacillus F bacterium more than a decade ago but is moving “step by step” due to a lack of staff, equipment, and funding. Infobae España speaks with him about his project.
The human species has spent centuries—at least—trying to overcome death. From the alchemical philosopher’s stone—about which Isaac Newton himself wrote in documents later published by the BBC—to Bryan Johnson injecting himself with his son’s blood plasma. Whether it is pure fear of death, the paradigmatic example of the unknown (since few things, if any, are as unfathomable), or love for the “self,” which, by all indications, ends upon dying.
About a decade ago, Dr. Anatoli Brouchkov suddenly caught the world’s attention. The Russian geologist, head of the Department of Geocryology at Moscow State University, appeared in numerous media outlets—from Vice and The New York Times to El Confidencial and The Daily Star—and for good reason. The scientist had crossed a line in his effort to discover the key to human longevity: he began to experiment on himself by injecting an ancient bacterium extracted from the permafrost of Yakutia, a region in central Siberia. Before self-inoculating, several experiments had already yielded promising results: treatment with this bacterium in elderly mice allowed them to retain their reproductive abilities well beyond normal ages; it also increased the lifespan of fruit flies and boosted the vitality of plants exposed to Bacillus F.
This is, of course, no coincidence. This bacterium, Bacillus F, has a unique characteristic: it somehow remained alive for millions of years—at least 3.5 million—without degrading or losing its properties. Nor life itself, which is even more astonishing. According to research, the secret of the bacterium’s longevity lies in some mechanism that prevents DNA-RNA degradation—one of the main causes of aging and eventual death in all living beings.
“It’s obvious that the bacterium has that mechanism. It’s obvious because we know its age. It’s very ancient and it doesn’t die. So, it has some kind of protection mechanism. I don’t think it’s a hypothesis anymore—it becomes a fact simply because the bacterium exists,” he explains. “We don’t know what it is, but it definitely has one. Otherwise, the bacterium would be dead. But after millions or thousands of years, it doesn’t die. This means it has some protection—and a very effective one. (…) It’s probably an efficient DNA repair mechanism.”
These “immortal” bacteria specimens were found in several samples of Siberian permafrost, as well as in amber and salts. According to Anatoli, the bacteria seep through soil and water, coming into contact with the external world and surface. “The permafrost melts. It degrades. And this bacterium gets into the environment, into the soil, into the water constantly—and has for centuries,” he explains. “There is a region, the area of ancient permafrost where this happens, that is populated. It’s a place where people live. And interestingly, in Siberia, that specific region in central Siberia where the ancient permafrost is found is known for the longevity of its inhabitants.”
Supposedly, “people there live longer than average. Many are over 100 years old. Yet that area has extremely harsh conditions—climatic, environmental, and so on. Life is very tough there. But still, people live longer. They live longer than in Florida, or, I don’t know, southern Europe, where life is much more comfortable.”
This was the first sign for Anatoli that injecting himself with this bacterium posed no risk. If it were harmful or dangerous, the local human and animal populations would show evidence of disease—but they show the opposite. According to the cryogeologist, this bacterium could potentially extend human life—not merely to 100 or 200 years, but, he claims, could make the human species practically immortal. It would only be necessary to replicate the genetic material preservation mechanism used by Bacillus F. The problem: he is certain it exists, but does not yet know what it is. However, he adds that it must be protein-based and that “it could truly extend your life, because if that mechanism is based on proteins, they would only need to be transferred into your body and start working.”
“Our cells and theirs are similar. I mean, the chemistry is similar—there’s no big difference. And the aging process is also similar at the biochemical level. DNA breakage and damage cause aging, and that’s true for every living cell,” he explains. He also asserts, “I’m quite sure that if we discover how the bacterium prevents DNA degradation, we could do the same for ourselves. I’m sure of that. The only thing we don’t know is what the mechanism is—or how to use it.”
The results of human experimentation:
The scientist claims that although he is cautious about whom he allows to participate, several individuals have now tried injecting themselves with the bacterium. “I’ve repeated it several times myself, and so have some friends. Nowadays, about 20 people are trying to use it. Some use it only once, while others use it more or less regularly. And, well, there are some positive results, but there is no proof that it can significantly extend lifespan.”
“We did blood tests before and after the experiments (…) and, in short, there’s an increase in physical activity, muscle strength, and a visible rise in testosterone levels, among other blood parameters. (…) There are about 20 people we’ve experimented with who showed these positive effects. But my goal is to extend human life—not just by, say, 50%, you know? But tenfold or a hundredfold,” though he’s not entirely sure it’s possible. Nonetheless, he adds that he has already registered a patent for a “bacterial extract as a dietary supplement” in some countries.
Dr. Brouchkov maintains, “I think I know how to discover the mechanism, how to identify it (…) but such research is, let’s say, lengthy. It will probably take years,” yet he lacks funding, equipment, and staff. “It’s hard to find, nowadays, a lab that’s fully equipped with enough specialists. I’d need three or four qualified microbiologists, molecular biologists, and all the materials. And I’d need a couple of years to do it.” For now, “I’m going step by step. They’re still steps, but they could be larger.”
In conclusion, Anatoli says, “I’m not looking for fame, awards, or anything like that. I just think it’s a way for people to live longer, which would be great. (…) I believe people can free themselves from death. Because right now, no one is. You know, death is inevitable, isn’t it?”
Federico Sáenz Martínez is a journalist and writer who collaborates with media outlets such as Infobae, where he publishes articles on current affairs, labor law, and social issues. His work combines informative analysis and outreach, clearly addressing legal and social matters relevant to the general public. He stands out for his direct style and his interest in explaining complex topics related to the world of work and contemporary legislation in an accessible way.
by Laboratory of the Future analysis team | Sep 15, 2025 | Biotechnology, News
The longevity industry is stronger than ever and continues to grow
The longevity industry is perhaps going through its best historical moment. Life expectancy has increased by about three decades since 1900, reaching around 78 years in 2023, according to U.S. statistics. But for many people, 78 years are not enough.
The Methuselah Foundation, a charitable biomedical organization, for instance, wants to “make 90 the new 50,” and scientists from a biotechnology company have argued that, free of disease, the human body could reach up to 150 years.
Even more optimistic estimates put the figure around 1,000 years. Whatever the maximum duration of human life may be, people seem increasingly determined to find it.
Last year, nearly 6,000 studies on longevity appeared in PubMed, a database of biomedical and life sciences articles—almost five times more than two decades ago.
Along with the creation of dozens of popular podcasts and a substantial supplement industry, that zeal has led to efforts to preserve organs, find life-extending diets, and even attempt to reverse aging itself.
Cosmetics, with their anti-aging products, help maintain a youthful appearance.
It is the same blend of solid science, quixotic experimentation, and questionable advice that has defined this pursuit throughout much of history.
Humanity’s oldest epic is a doomed quest for immortality: about four thousand years ago, the Sumerians told of a Mesopotamian king named Gilgamesh who sought eternal life and found a plant that restored youth—but lost it on his way home.
Two millennia later, a Chinese magician named Xu Fu convinced the emperor that there was an elixir guaranteeing eternal life beyond the Yellow Sea. The emperor provided Xu Fu with ships and the 3,000 virgins that, according to the magician, were essential for the quest. When the emperor realized little progress had been made, Xu Fu said he also needed an army—which the emperor granted him. Xu Fu set sail, and the emperor never saw him again.
The desire to live forever also fueled the stories of Macedonian king Alexander the Great and Spanish conquistador Juan Ponce de León. They too failed. It’s a lesson lost on the alchemists, who for centuries tried to create a drink that would grant immortality. Among them was Isaac Newton, who went to his grave in the early 18th century believing his alchemical research would one day prove more important than his laws of motion.
But even before Newton’s death, Enlightenment thinkers had traded the dream of immortality for the less ambitious goal of living a bit longer. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word longevity first appeared in the 16th century—around the same time as the first longevity diet book, written after an Italian nobleman named Luigi Cornaro began to suspect that his fondness for alcohol, lavish banquets, and late nights was harming his health.
He then adopted a restricted daily diet of eggs, milk, broth, and vegetables. He lived to be 80 and wrote about his eating habits in Discourses on a Sober Life. His advice may have been better than that of his successors’ Meat for Every Occasion and Calories Don’t Count.
Cornaro had stumbled upon the modern notion of caloric restriction—a practice that researchers have since shown increases lifespan in dogs, mice, monkeys, worms, and, according to a large-scale study, possibly even humans. Cornaro also endorsed other, less scientific restrictions, such as sexual abstinence, which he believed would preserve vitality.
The Substance, the film starring Demi Moore, revisits the theme of aging.
He was wrong, but not alone. This line of thinking remained fashionable for centuries after his death. In Chicago, a urologist began replacing men’s testicles—including his own—with those of younger individuals. Nine years later, in 1923, he died at 65.
That same year, Austrian physiologist Eugen Steinach promoted a new genital surgery to treat the diseases of aging. Among the first to undergo the operation was Sigmund Freud, who died of cancer at 83. But the operation—vasectomy—still exists today, though for a very different purpose.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, anti-aging gurus and charlatans regularly promoted lifestyle changes: avoiding “excessive sleep,” giving up water, marrying, and even moving to Nantucket (“where no one dies young”). They also proposed banning novels that “poison the mind.”
Often, their goal was to make money. But many of the worst strategies came from elderly people themselves, who told reporters they drank a bottle of “old, good wine” every day, avoided medicine, ate sweets, hunted whales, and smoked “at least one cigar a day,” even while walking.
Associations emerged with names like Jolly Young Men’s Club and The Hundred Years Club, the latter an organization whose members met at New York’s Waldorf Astoria Hotel to “maintain a library” of “theories from India, Egypt, and ancient Hebrews.” Among the guest speakers was physician Cyrus Edson, who told attendees that “men of good temperament live remarkably long lives.” (He died three years later, in his early forties.)
Nevertheless, the popularity of the “art of longevity,” as the club called it, continued to grow. Yet, as the president of London’s Centenarian Club noted in the late 1920s, “it is mainly men, not women, who are most interested in living long.”
By the mid-20th century, according to one tracker, mentions of “longevity” had surpassed “immortality” in published books.
Life expectancy increased largely thanks to water filtration and chlorination, the discovery of antibiotics like penicillin, and the advent of vaccines against deadly diseases such as polio.
What had once been the realm of magicians had—with the help of advances such as the identification of DNA—become a more legitimate pursuit. Still, even among the most respected scientists of the era, eccentric proposals persisted.
Alexander Bogomolets, former director of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, developed a serum based on horse blood and cadaver marrow that he claimed would allow people “to live up to 150 years.”
And Nobel Prize-winning biologist Alexis Carrel claimed to have kept chicken heart tissue alive for years.
There was also Linus Pauling, one of the founders of molecular biology and a Nobel Prize–winning chemist, who throughout much of his career promoted megadoses of vitamin C as a way to prevent 75% of cancers and extend life up to 150 years. When Pauling died of cancer in 1994 at age 93, his longevity research was, in many eyes, discredited.
Immortality, as the old stories warned, may be a doomed endeavor. But it is unlikely that the search for a longer life will stop anytime soon. As a Catholic priest in New York observed in 1927, noting his followers’ relentless desire to escape death:
“Men have always been interested in prolonging their lives, no matter how miserable and unfortunate they may have been.”
Researchers at Harvard and Oxford universities recently tried to measure that interest in today’s market. They estimated that the total value of any scientific breakthrough that added just one extra decade to global life expectancy would amount to $367 billion.
But even here, the ancients advised caution. Roman writer Pliny the Elder spoke of an era when men had lived for 800 years—and said they had grown so tired of life that they threw themselves into the sea.
The newspaper Clarín of Buenos Aires is one of the most influential and widely circulated newspapers in Argentina. Founded in 1945 by Roberto Noble, it is part of the Clarín Group and stands out for its mission to reach the general public with a broad informational approach, covering politics, economics, culture, sports, entertainment, and opinion. (Wikipedia) In its digital version, it has become a benchmark for online journalism in Spanish, leading in both digital subscriptions and web traffic. (LatAm Journalism Review) Its editorial line combines current news with analysis, aiming to position itself as a modern media outlet that adapts its content across multiple platforms.
