SARAH FERGUSON, PRESENTER: A discovery in a glass of red wine - or in its molecules at least - started world famous Australian scientist David Sinclair down the path towards the miracle of an anti-ageing pill.

And now that miracle is within reach, reversing the way our cells deteriorate, which means we could live much longer and healthier - playing tennis well in our 90s, as David Sinclair predicts.

The discoveries also have enormous implications for treating diseases like diabetes and Alzheimer's.

I spoke to the man recently named by time as one of the world's 100 most influential people earlier.

David Sinclair, welcome to 7:30.

DAVID SINCLAIR, GENETICIST, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL: Thank you.

SARAH FERGUSON: What is the potential in your discoveries for delaying the way our bodies age?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Well about 20 years ago there was a big discovery in the field of ageing and that is that we have these genes that keep us younger. We call these longevity genes. And what I've been doing ever since is trying to figure out a way to make a medicine, a little pill that we could take every day, to turn on those genes and make our bodies fight against diseases and live a longer, healthier life.

SARAH FERGUSON: It sounds almost like science fiction. Are we really at a point where that pill could exist, could be bought, could be prescribed?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Well we really are. I would say 20 years ago, you might have been, you know, reasonably sceptical that this could be possible. But we found these genes and we've changed them in animals. The animals live healthier and longer. We found molecules that we feed to the mice, for example, and they can live 20, 30 per cent longer. So now it's just a question of: can we do this in humans? And I think it's a question of when, no longer if.

SARAH FERGUSON: This isn't just about living longer, is it? It's about living longer and being healthy?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Exactly. No, the nightmare scenario is making people live longer in a nursing home. That's absolutely the opposite of what we're doing here. What we find in our studies, actually, is that the reason these test animals live longer is because they don't get cancer and heart disease and Alzheimer's until much later. And so what we're trying to do is compress those years of sickness down into maybe a few months.

SARAH FERGUSON: I'll ask you about those diseases in just a second. But you talk about the mice, but actually you come from a long line of scientists who self-experiment. You did this work on yourself too, didn't you?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Well, you know, Australians tend to do that, as you know. Yes, we found this molecule in red wine that seemed to slow down ageing in animals and I thought, "What have I got to lose?" So I started, now 10 years ago, experimenting on myself to see how it would go and I'm still alive.

SARAH FERGUSON: If you're taking the molecule yourself, how do you actually check whether it's having an effect as opposed to the natural ageing process?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Right, right. So we need thousands of people like me and - being carefully monitored, so ...

SARAH FERGUSON: That's funny; I can hear everybody around the country listening saying, "I'll volunteer for your anti-ageing medicine."

DAVID SINCLAIR: That's true; I get many emails every day. But there are studies actually ongoing around the world with this molecule and the better molecules, that we have molecules that are 1,000 times more effective than the original. And those are showing some early signs of benefits in people's health. It'll be a long time before we know if people actually live longer though.

SARAH FERGUSON: Now - of course, as you say, we're not just talking about not living longer; you're talking about targeting the diseases that get so much worse towards the end of our life. Of the ageing diseases, which is most likely to be targeted first by this particular discovery?

DAVID SINCLAIR: That's a very good question. The disease that seems to work very rapidly is diabetes. So if your blood sugar is high, we can reverse that rapidly in mice. In fact we just last year showed that we could reverse aspects of ageing within a week using these molecules.

SARAH FERGUSON: Are you also looking at degenerative brain diseases as well like Alzheimer's?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Well, reversing Alzheimer's is something entirely different and more difficult than reversing diabetes. So we haven't done that yet. But, these molecules and these genes that protect us have been shown to be beneficial in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and even Huntington's. So imagine a day where you take a pill, prescribed by your doctor, for your diabetes, and as a side effect, you're protected against Alzheimer's and Huntington's and cancer and heart disease as well. That's the future I want to see.

SARAH FERGUSON: Now you're here visiting from the United States where you've done a lot of your work at Harvard. I know you also have laboratory here in Sydney. Can we replicate that research utopia that you describe existing at Harvard and in Boston here? Can it be done?

DAVID SINCLAIR: I'm sure it can be. We're a relatively wealthy nation here. What we lack though is constant backing by the Government. In the US, the funding is at a much higher level per GDP and the funding is more constant. I left because I saw that there was an opportunity in America, but I'd love to come back here and help build up an America-like structure. I think we can do that.

SARAH FERGUSON: There is some discussion going on at the moment out of the federal Budget and some of that discussion is around funding for scientific organisations. There have been some cuts to the CSIRO. I know you talk about the necessity of having all disciplines of science invested in, not just medical research. Does that distress you to come back to Australia and find that our scientific institutions are being - having cuts?

DAVID SINCLAIR: Well, it really does. The way it works where I am in Boston is that if we have an idea, we'll go and talk to the engineers or the physicists and it's that collective community and know-how that makes these inventions that are amazing quite possible - new devices, new medicines, new theories. And I fear that if we cut just certain sections of science and think, "Oh, well, let's just put our money here," we're eroding that ecosystem of science that works so well in places like Boston.

SARAH FERGUSON: At the same time, there's just been an announcement again in the Budget of a large amount of money that may go towards medical research. I can't imagine for a moment you're going to argue against that fund.

DAVID SINCLAIR: Well I wouldn't. That was one of the most exciting bits of news I've ever heard from Australia. If it happens, I'd be the first to rejoice. And I know there's been some push-back. It's considered a sum that some people shouldn't have to bear. I would argue that it's an investment. We know that we get back $2 for every $1 invested in science. And, if you end up having a daughter who has leukaemia, I think skipping a coffee or a beer occasionally would be a reasonable price to pay for a cure.

SARAH FERGUSON: David Sinclair, thank you very much indeed for coming in to talk to us this evening.

DAVID SINCLAIR: Oh, thanks, Sarah, for having me.