The debate featured two prominent figures in ageing research: Aubrey de Grey, known for his damage-repair approach, and Josh Mitteldorf, an advocate for the programmed ageing hypothesis. The discussion aimed to explore whether ageing is an evolutionary adaptation ("programmed") or an inevitable accumulation of molecular and cellular damage ("non-programmed").

Key Points:

Aubrey de Grey argues that ageing results from the accumulation of damage and favours a focus on repairing it, regardless of whether ageing is programmed. Josh Mitteldorf supports the programmed ageing hypothesis, emphasizing signalling changes as key to reversing ageing and highlighting species-specific evidence for programmed mechanisms.

• Programmed Ageing Hypothesis: Mitteldorf presented evidence of ageing as an evolutionary adaptation, citing genetic mechanisms like conserved insulin pathways and examples such as starvation-induced lifespan extension.
• Non-Programmed Ageing View: De Grey refuted programmed ageing, attributing ageing to antagonistic pleiotropy, where genes beneficial early in life cause harm later due to insufficient evolutionary pressure.
• Shared Concepts: Both agreed on concepts like antagonistic pleiotropy, the role of epigenetics, and the importance of studying signalling pathways in ageing.
• Species Examples: Mitteldorf cited species like salmon and naked mole rats to argue for programmed ageing, while De Grey contested their interpretations as programmed versus non-programmed.
• Current Science: Mitteldorf highlighted Harold Katcher's work on exosomes from young animals showing rejuvenation effects, while De Grey emphasized the lack of substantial lifespan extension through signalling interventions.
• Implications for Research: The debate underscored diverging strategies—focusing on signalling adjustments versus engineering damage repair—for advancing anti-ageing therapies.