I work in aging, and I think both avenues -- understanding the genetic bases of longevity, and working on repairing damage or other interventions -- need to be

I work in aging, and I think both avenues -- understanding the genetic bases of longevity, and working on repairing damage or other interventions -- need to be pursued in parallel. Yes, genetics is hot, but also necessary to find the molecular drivers of the aging process. Despite what de Grey and others might have us believe, it is very far from clear what age-associated molecular changes qualify as "damage". Which changes are causal and which are compensatory? Are the widespread changes in DNA methylation and other epigenomic markers that occur with age "damage"? AFAIK, no one knows. Even when it is clear that a molecular change can probably be considered "damage" (loss of telomeres, DNA damage, protein aggregation), it is still unclear which kinds of damage actually need to be reversed to promote longevity. I think it is silly to see SENS and Calico et al as if they were in competition. We are all working towards the same goal, and anyone who claims to know for certain which avenue will ultimately attain our common goal of achieving increased longevity is selling you a load. EDIT: My personal opinion about the difficulty of funding the SENS program (which I'll take your word for; I don't know anything about their funding sources or situation), is the extravagant claims that have been made. Reviewers don't like those. A lot of scientists have very ambitious and grand goals, but one of the secrets to grant-writing is to frame your goals as ambitious enough to be interesting, but limited enough to be attainable in the 3-5 year scope of a grant. And "unlimited human lifespan" is just a tad too ambitious.