The scientific method actually correctly uses the most direct evidence as the most reliable, because that's the way you are least likely to get led astray into dead ends and to misunderstand your data.

Some things tend not to work so well for science - things that rely on substantial written contributions by key experts are a case in point - but even there I tend to keep an open mind, because it may just be a case of finding the right formula.

Accept the difficulty of what you cannot yet change. But do not accept the impossibility of ever changing it.

Theres no such thing as ageing gracefully. I dont meet people who want to get Alzheimers disease, or who want to get cancer or arthritis or any of the other things that afflict the elderly. Ageing is bad for you, and we better just actually accept that.

I'm the chief science officer of a foundation that works on the application of regenerative medicine to the problem of aging.

[Anti-aging therapies will] never be perfect, but we'll be able to fix the things that 200-year-olds die of before we have any 200-year-olds, and the same for 300 and 400 and so on.

Wikipedia was a big help for science, especially science communication, and it shows no sign of diminishing in importance.