It's not. As explained in the article, big dogs'short lifespan is an anomaly brought on by breeding for one trait (size). This has no application whatsoever to human lifespan.
That was never a requirement nor an option. Of course we're not going to know we have a working life-extension drug until someone's life actually gets extended. The point is once we get to that point, you can now get FDA approval for that drug as a life-extender rather than as a treatment for a specific condition.
> Of course we're not going to know we have a working life-extension drug until someone's life actually gets extended.
That means each stage of trials for each drug would be 10+ years at best, possibly longer. With that time horizon, it's unlikely we'll get an approved life-extension drug in the next 50 years.
There are three phases to drug trials. Phases 1 and 2 would not need to run long enough for people to live longer, they would only need to run long enough to confirm the drug isn't dangerous and does something (such as suppression of some gene related to aging). Only the Phase 3 trial, which proves efficacy, would need to run long enough to see people's lives extended, and even then it only needs to show some statistically significant improvement over the baseline, which is currently zero. Most drugs take 10-15 years to pass clinical trials, so unless this is a drug that needs to be administered in youth it should be pretty typical. Different drugs can be tested in parallel (though obviously lessons learned take time to be incorporated).
That all being said, I'd prefer a drug in 50 years to never. Maybe I won't personally benefit, but if my future grandchildren get a wonder drug, I'd still consider that a big win.
Just to clarify what I meant, it's the regulatory aspect. The FDA wouldn't even accept a new drug application for the indication of "longevity" or "lifespan" or anything like that. It wasn't considered a valid target / disease.
