A few weeks ago, one of my colleagues at Harvard asked me why I was hawking shoe insoles online.

Shoe insoles. Seriously.

A company I'd never heard of before was apparently using my name and research to sell its foot care products. I'm sure there's some sort of connection between the shoes we wear and our years left on Earth—as my friend David Armstrong will tell you, healthy feet are essential for long life—but nothing in my research is even remotely related to shoe insoles. Thus far, my work has primarily related to yeast and mice, after all, and neither of those species wear shoes.

Yeast, mice, and other model organisms can tell us quite a bit about ourselves and our futures, though. And the research I have been involved in — and seen over the years — certainly suggests that discoveries made in the aging field have great potential for combating age-related decline. That potential is still quite some time away from being fully validated in humans, but that hasn't stopped a lot of supplement companies from using my name to sell their products.

So, let me be clear: I don't endorse shoes. Or supplements. Or any existing product.

I'll talk about my lab's research all day long – but that doesn't mean I endorse any of the products directly or indirectly derived from it.

I do occasionally invent things, along with my colleagues, that I hope will be useful to society. When that happens, the university chooses if they want to file a patent application, and the inventions can then be licensed by the university to companies that have an interest in bringing them to market.

I absolutely endorse the science that supports those patents – and yes, I'll talk about my lab's research all day long – but that doesn't mean I endorse any of the products directly or indirectly derived from it.

One of the lessons of a career in science that I wish someone had taught me a long time ago: Science is more fun than litigation.

For the most part, scientists don't get to control how their research is interpreted and cited, and they don't get to control which companies their inventions are licensed to. Most people don’t realize that the majority of academic scientists work for someone else. As such they don’t own their work, just like someone who works for Google doesn’t own the next algorithm they dream up.

But the fact that a scientist doesn’t control where their inventions end up doesn’t mean that aggressive marketers can’t cleverly attempt to benefit from the scientist behind the invention or their latest scientific publication. When they are explicit – using your name or likeness – you call up your lawyer and fire up the cease-and-desist machine. It’s a constant battle.

You can see why most scientists are reticent to engage with the public. The less you say, the less what you say can be misinterpreted and misused.

Speaking out publicly against companies can be risky, and the nutraceutical industry is especially litigious. One of my colleagues, Jay Olshansky, for example, was sued for $120 million, for decrying a "lack of scientific evidence supporting treatments" in a case that was eventually settled. This is not an isolated case. I lost about a year's salary in legal bills in a spat between two companies that began with me saying that "some supplements" lacked activity.

In this context, you can see why most scientists are reticent to engage with the public. The less you say, the less what you say can be misinterpreted and misused.

Trust me, I know the pitfalls of talking in public. Sometimes, my statements are misinterpreted or vastly exaggerated. But even though it's risky, I figure if people are going to be talking about the work I do anyway, I might as well be in on the conversation. In fact, I feel scientists have a duty to be in on the conversation. Here's why:

It is a powerful way to focus the public on importance of research.

It can inspire young people to get into science and find their own moonshots.

Because most labs survive on government grants, including mine, scientists should be grateful and should tell the public what their tax dollars were been spent on.

It is a privilege to live in a country that strongly supports medical research. Many countries don't.

There is no guarantee that support for science will continue, especially if the public has no interest in science or sees no benefit.

It gives scientists a chance to correct actual “fake news.”

Over the years, I've tried to be accessible and completely honest when reporters ask me questions—even to the point of being willing to do something that many scientists won't: Speculate about where my area of research is headed.

One of the topics I feel qualified to speak about is longevity research and the fact that scientists around the world have been able to extend lifespans and healthspans in just about every model organism you can think of. So it stands to reason that we'll be able to do this in humans, too, at some point.

If an approach works on a yeast cell, a worm, a fly, and a mouse, it stands to reason it might work on a human. We aren't that different. Having worked on making medicines for over a decade, I do know how hard that last mile is. Nonetheless, I happen to think that innovation in the aging space is moving faster than most people are aware of. It's why I have been very open, all while being very clear that I don’t make health and wellness recommendations for anyone.

So expect me to continue to talk about the science all day long and endorse is the brilliance and passion of the amazing group of researchers in my lab at Harvard Medical School, who are working so feverishly on a variety of projects to understand why we age and what we can do about age-related diseases. That includes the evaluation of molecules and gene therapies that may one day be used as medicines –– medicines that will have been shown to work in clinical trials.

My wife Sandra — who runs a non-profit — and I want to help as many people as possible in our lifetimes. That's why she supports my involvement as a founder, leader, inventor, investor, and scientific adviser to companies aimed at improving human health. We live in a vastly interconnected and rapidly changing world that threatens our quality and way of life, and this work is our way of contributing. These companies include EdenRoc Sciences (MetroBiotech, ArcBio, Liberty Biosecurity, UpRNA, Claret, and Revere), Life Biosciences (Jumpstart Fertility, Selphagy, Senolytic Therapeutics, Animal Biosciences, Iduna, Immetas, Continuum), Cohbar, Jupiter Orphan Therapeutics, Vium, Galilei, and InsideTracker.

While I do my best to invent, drive innovation forward, and speak about what I believe in, please don't think I endorse products.

Because I don't endorse products. Not shoe insoles. Not supplements. Not scuba gear.

What do I endorse? The scientific research that has my name on it. You can find that here and here.

---

Many of you know I'm writing a book about the impact this research will likely have on all our lives personally, economically and socially. It is the culmination of 25 years of researching this topic and my mission to shape and advance the global dialogue about aging.

Want a running account of a whole lot of things going through my mind? Head over to Twitter — I'm @davidasinclair.