How scientific consensus reshapes aging research without resolving core disagreements

The field of aging research lacks fundamental consensus on what aging actually is, why it occurs, and how to treat it as a medical condition. A recent philosophical analysis of the Hallmarks of Aging—the most influential conceptual framework in contemporary geroscience—reveals that its value lies not in resolving theoretical disagreements but in structuring the field to enable practical coordination across divergent scientific communities. From a Kuhnian perspective, the Hallmarks function as the dominant paradigm defining valid evidence and pertinent interventions; from a Lakatosian view, they act as a robust theoretical core surrounded by alternative models like SENS. Significantly, even the recent catalogue of 100 open questions in aging research is formulated within the conceptual space the Hallmarks have stabilized, suggesting they don't eliminate disagreement but restructure it within a more coherent methodological environment. For the longevity researcher or practitioner, this means the field advances less through epistemic consensus than through shared institutional architecture.