Regeneration and regrowth should be in situ where possible. Stem cell treatments are clearly beneficial, but will most likely give way to other methods of direc

Regeneration and regrowth should be in situ where possible. Stem cell treatments are clearly beneficial, but will most likely give way to other methods of directly altering the behavior of native cells. Delivering signal molecules into the environment, or small molecules capable of otherwise adjusting cell epigenetic state. In the final analysis if you can repair other forms of damage, many of the issues with regeneration should go away, as lost healing capacity is a result of age-related stem cell decline that it is in turn largely a reaction to a damaged environment. This of course needs to be proved. The best way to prove it is to implement the damage repair biotechnologies, see what happens. Currently the major research focus in the mainstream is not to repair damage at all. It is rather to identify changes in signals and reverse them, and thus wake up stem cells and put them back to work on tissue maintenance, even damaged as they are and damaged as the tissue environment is. This is actually producing far better results with far less cancer as a result than you might think it would, which is always a bonus, but it isn't what I would consider the best path ahead. Replacement of stem cell populations in the old are probably a necessary treatment. Clear out all damaged cells and generate a set of replacement cells from the patient's own tissues. Do that and then the organs should sort themselves out, except for gross damage that might need more treatment to rescue, such as deformation of the cardiovascular system as a result of hypertension that probably won't reverse itself.