Wisdom as Infrastructure: A New Architecture for Longevity and Regeneration
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.13052/ijts2246-8765.2026.002Keywords:
Translational science, longevity, regenerative medicine, human flourishing, systems biology, implementation science, responsible innovation, health equityAbstract
Longevity science and regenerative medicine have moved the limits of translational medicine. The sciences of aging and age-related diseases, cell and gene therapies, biomaterials, digital phenotyping, and artificial intelligence are expanding what can be measured and modified across the life course. Yet the field’s decisive bottleneck may no longer be discovery alone. Technical capacity is advancing faster than the institutional capacity to decide what should count as progress, how uncertainty should be governed, and how biological gains become durable and equitably distributed human benefit.
This perspective advances the proposition that wisdom is infrastructure. Wisdom is defined here not as intuition or individual authority, but as the organized capacity to integrate heterogeneous evidence, deliberate explicitly about values, anticipate consequences across time, and implement innovation with the people and systems it will affect.
The perspective situates this proposition within a broader architecture of human flourishing and proposes a translational human flourishing framework comprising six integrative and interdependent domains: biological integrity and plasticity; functional capacity and resilience; agency, purpose, and meaning; social connection and participation; enabling environments; and ethical governance and equity.
The framework does not displace mechanistic, disease-specific, or regulatory endpoints. It connects them to the full causal pathway through which an intervention becomes meaningful in a human life. A research agenda is proposed around multidomain outcomes, longitudinal trajectories, implementation and equity, governance indicators, learning health systems, and place-based translational ecosystems.
The central claim is deliberately ambitious but empirically bounded: longevity and regenerative medicine will fulfill their promise only when the infrastructures that accelerate innovation are matched by infrastructures that give innovation direction, legitimacy, memory, and human purpose.
Downloads
References
A. Alimujiang, A. Wiensch, J. Boss, et al., “Association between life purpose and mortality among US adults older than 50 years,” JAMA Netw. Open, vol. 2, p. e194270, 2019, doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.4270.
A.-L. Barabási, N. Gulbahce, and J. Loscalzo, “Network medicine: a network-based approach to human disease,” Nat. Rev. Genet., vol. 12, pp. 56–68, 2011, doi: 10.1038/nrg2918.
P. Bate and G. Robert, “Experience-based design: from redesigning the system around the patient to co-designing services with the patient,” Quality and Safety in Health Care, vol. 15, pp. 307–310, 2006, doi: 10.1136/qshc.2005.016527.
J. R. Beard, A. Officer, I. A. de Carvalho, et al., “The world report on ageing and health: a policy framework for healthy ageing,” Lancet, vol. 387, pp. 2145–2154, 2016, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)00516-4.
J. B. Becke, B. J. Prendergast, and J. W. Liang, “Female rats are not more variable than male rats: a meta-analysis of neuroscience studies,” Biol. Sex Differ., vol. 7, p. 34, 2016, doi: 10.1186/s13293-016-0087-5.
A. K. Beery and I. Zucker, “Sex bias in neuroscience and biomedical research,” Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev., vol. 35, pp. 565–572, 2011, doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.07.002.
A. Boaz, S. Hanney, R. Borst, A. O’Shea, and M. Kok, “How to engage stakeholders in research: design principles to support improvement,” Health Research Policy and Systems, vol. 16, p. 60, 2018, doi: 10.1186/s12961-018-0337-6. This paper presents organizational, practical and values-based principles for sustained stakeholder engagement throughout research rather than isolated consultation.
D. Cella, W. Riley, A. Stone, et al., “The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health-outcome item banks: 2005–2008,” J. Clin. Epidemiol., vol. 63, pp. 1179–1194, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011.
E. Chen, G. Neta, and M. C. Roberts, “Complementary approaches to problem solving in healthcare and public health: implementation science and human-centered design,” Translational Behavioral Medicine, vol. 11, pp. 1115–1121, 2021, doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa079.
J. Coast, R. D. Smith, and P. Lorgelly, “Should the capability approach be applied in health economics?,” Health Econ., vol. 17, pp. 667–670, 2008, doi: 10.1002/hec.1359.
F. S. Collins and H. Varmus, “A new initiative on precision medicine,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 372, pp. 793–795, 2015, doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1500523.
B. M. Deasy, A. Lu, J. C. Tebbets, et al., “A role for cell sex in stem cell-mediated skeletal muscle regeneration: female cells have higher muscle regeneration efficiency,” J. Cell Biol., vol. 177, pp. 73–86, 2007, doi: 10.1083/jcb.200612094.
E. J. Emanuel, D. Wendler, and C. Grady, “What makes clinical research ethical?,” JAMA, vol. 283, pp. 2701–2711, 2000, doi: 10.1001/jama.283.20.2701.
G. L. Engel, “The need for a new medical model: a challenge for biomedicine,” Science, vol. 196, pp. 129–136, 1977, doi: 10.1126/science.847460.
V. A. Entwistle and I. S. Watt, “Treating patients as persons: a capabilities approach to support delivery of person-centered care,” Am. J. Bioeth., vol. 13, pp. 29–39, 2013, doi: 10.1080/15265161.2013.802060.
L. Ferrucci, M. Gonzalez-Freire, E. Fabbri, et al., “Measuring biological aging in humans: a quest,” Aging Cell, vol. 19, p. e13080, 2020, doi: 10.1111/acel.13080.
J. F. Fries, “Aging, natural death, and the compression of morbidity,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 303, pp. 130–135, 1980.
J. Galipeau and L. Sensébé, “Mesenchymal stromal cells: clinical challenges and therapeutic opportunities,” Cell Stem Cell, vol. 22, pp. 824–833, 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2018.05.004.
R. E. Glasgow, T. M. Vogt, and S. M. Boles, “Evaluating the public health impact of health-promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework,” Am. J. Public Health, vol. 89, pp. 1322–1327, 1999, doi: 10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322.
D. J. Greenblatt, J. S. Harmatz, N. N. Singh, et al., “Gender differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zolpidem following sublingual administration,” J. Clin. Pharmacol., vol. 54, pp. 282–290, 2014, doi: 10.1002/jcph.220.
J. Holt-Lunstad, T. B. Smith, and J. B. Layton, “Social relationships and mortality risk: a meta-analytic review,” PLoS Med., vol. 7, p. e1000316, 2010, doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000316.
S. Horvath and K. Raj, “DNA methylation-based biomarkers and the epigenetic clock theory of ageing,” Nat. Rev. Genet., vol. 19, pp. 371–384, 2018, doi: 10.1038/s41576-018-0004-3.
M. Huber, J. A. Knottnerus, L. Green, et al., “How should we define health?,” BMJ, vol. 343, p. d4163, 2011, doi: 10.1136/bmj.d4163.
Institute of Medicine, Best Care at Lower Cost: The Path to Continuously Learning Health Care in America. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2013, doi: 10.17226/13444.
H. Kitano, “Systems biology: a brief overview,” Science, vol. 295, pp. 1662–1664, 2002, doi: 10.1126/science.1069492.
G. Kroemer, A. B. Maier, A. M. Cuervo, et al., “From geroscience to precision geromedicine: understanding and managing aging,” Cell, vol. 188, pp. 2043–2062, 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2025.03.011.
Y. Li, Y. Wen, M. Green, et al., “Cell sex affects extracellular matrix protein expression and proliferation of smooth muscle progenitor cells derived from human pluripotent stem cells,” Stem Cell Res. Ther., vol. 8, p. 156, 2017, doi: 10.1186/s13287-017-0606-2.
C. López-Otín and G. Kroemer, “Hallmarks of health,” Cell, vol. 184, pp. 33–63, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.034.
C. López-Otín, M. A. Blasco, L. Partridge, M. Serrano, and G. Kroemer, “Hallmarks of aging: an expanding universe,” Cell, vol. 186, pp. 243–278, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2022.11.001.
A. S. Mao and D. J. Mooney, “Regenerative medicine: current therapies and future directions,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 112, pp. 14452–14459, 2015, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1508520112.
M. Marmot, S. Friel, R. Bell, T. A. J. Houweling, and S. Taylor, “Closing the gap in a generation: health equity through action on the social determinants of health,” Lancet, vol. 372, pp. 1661–1669, 2008, doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61690-6.
C. Mason and P. Dunnill, “A brief definition of regenerative medicine,” Regen. Med., vol. 3, pp. 1–5, 2008, doi: 10.2217/17460751.3.1.1.
National Institutes of Health, “Consideration of sex as a biological variable in NIH-funded research,” Notice NOT-OD-15-102, 2015.
National Research Council, Toward Precision Medicine: Building a Knowledge Network for Biomedical Research and a New Taxonomy of Disease. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011, doi: 10.17226/13284.
National Research Council, Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science, N. J. Cooke and M. L. Hilton, eds. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2015, doi: 10.17226/19007.
A. Ocampo, P. Reddy, P. Martinez-Redondo, et al., “In vivo amelioration of age-associated hallmarks by partial reprogramming,” Cell, vol. 167, pp. 1719–1733.e12, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.052.
P. E. Plsek and T. Greenhalgh, “Complexity science: the challenge of complexity in health care,” BMJ, vol. 323, pp. 625–628, 2001, doi: 10.1136/bmj.323.7313.625.
E. Proctor, H. Silmere, R. Raghavan, et al., “Outcomes for implementation research: conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda,” Adm. Policy Ment. Health, vol. 38, pp. 65–76, 2011, doi: 10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7.
D. B. Reuben and M. E. Tinetti, “Goal-oriented patient care – an alternative health outcomes paradigm,” N. Engl. J. Med., vol. 366, pp. 777–779, 2012, doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1113631.
A. Sen, Development as Freedom. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 1999.
P. Slattery, A. K. Saeri, and P. Bragge, “Research co-design in health: a rapid overview of reviews,” Health Research Policy and Systems, vol. 18, p. 17, 2020, doi: 10.1186/s12961-020-0528-9. This overview supports the potential value of co-design for researchers, practitioners, research processes and outcomes, while appropriately noting that its long-term impact still requires more systematic evaluation.
R. E. Sorge, J. C. S. Mapplebeck, S. Rosen, et al., “Different immune cells mediate mechanical pain hypersensitivity in male and female mice,” Nat. Neurosci., vol. 18, pp. 1081–1083, 2015, doi: 10.1038/nn.4053.
J. Stilgoe, R. Owen, and P. Macnaghten, “Developing a framework for responsible innovation,” Res. Policy, vol. 42, pp. 1568–1580, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2013.05.008.
D. Stokols, K. L. Hall, B. K. Taylor, and R. P. Moser, “The science of team science: overview of the field and introduction to the supplement,” Am. J. Prev. Med., vol. 35, pp. S77–S89, 2008.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, “Risk of next-morning impairment after use of insomnia drugs: FDA requires lower recommended doses for certain drugs containing zolpidem,” Drug Safety Communication, 2013.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Study of Sex Differences in the Clinical Evaluation of Medical Products: Draft Guidance for Industry, 2025.
T. J. VanderWeele, “On the promotion of human flourishing,” Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A., vol. 114, pp. 8148–8156, 2017, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1702996114.
H. E. Whitson, W. Duan-Porter, K. E. Schmader, M. C. Morey, H. J. Cohen, and C. S. Colón-Emeric, “Physical resilience in older adults: systematic review and development of an emerging construct,” J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci., vol. 71, pp. 489–495, 2016, doi: 10.1093/gerona/glv202.
T. Woods, N. Palmarini, L. Corner, et al., “Cities, communities and clinics can be testbeds for human exposome and aging research,” Nat. Med., vol. 31, pp. 1066–1068, 2025, doi: 10.1038/s41591-025-03519-8.
S. H. Woolf, “The meaning of translational research and why it matters,” JAMA, vol. 299, pp. 211–213, 2008, doi: 10.1001/jama.2007.26.
World Health Organization, Decade of Healthy Ageing: Baseline Report. World Health Organization, Geneva, 2020.
