Bridging Science and Investment – An Interview with Professor Stefan Catsicas

Simone Gibertoni: This week’s Unlock Longevity takes you inside the world of longevity investing — where cutting-edge science meets visionary capital. As you know, longevity is more than just a concept for us at Clinique La Prairie. It’s our mission. And to accelerate that mission globally, we’ve launched the CLP Longevity Fund: a private investment vehicle dedicated to identifying, funding, and scaling the most promising technologies that extend human healthspan.*

The CLP Longevity Fund* is co-led by myself, Simone Gibertoni, CEO of Clinique La Prairie, and Professor Stefan Catsicas, a renowned neuroscientist, molecular biologist, former CTO of Nestlé, and now one of the most respected voices in biotech investment. Our goal is clear: bridge the gap between breakthrough science and real-world application and help shape the future of preventive and regenerative health. This isn’t a passive fund. We invest with purpose, we mentor, we connect science to business, and we accelerate the most credible, evidence-backed companies in the field of longevity.

In this special interview, I sat down with Stefan to explore how we separate hype from science, what makes a startup truly investable in this space, and what we’ve learned in the last years of working together. Let’s dive in.

Simone Gibertoni: The longevity space is booming, but not everything is backed by solid science. Stefan, how do you separate genuine scientific breakthroughs from the buzz and hype that often surrounds longevity?

Stefan Catsicas: It starts with a healthy scepticism and a demand for data. In longevity, there’s a tendency for exciting claims to race ahead of evidence. I’ve seen this both in academia and in industry – flashy marketing or sensational headlines claiming a new “anti-aging miracle” before peer-reviewed results are in. The first thing I ask is, what is the quality of the science? Are there robust studies, preferably in reputable journals or clinical trials run with major institutions, showing an intervention actually impacts aging markers or health outcomes? If the “breakthrough” is only supported by a couple of mouse experiments or, worse, just theoretical hype, we pump the brakes. Scientific rigor means reproducible results and well-designed studies.

That said, some concepts that sounded like hype a decade ago are now gaining credible support. Take sound therapy as an example – it was once dismissed as new-age fluff, but now research shows it can improve heart rate variability and even help with tinnitus, as shown by Swiss start-up AudioVitality. In short, real breakthroughs come with real evidence, and my litmus test is always the people involved and their science. Hype might grab attention, but rigor is what ultimately earns my trust (and investment).

Simone Gibertoni: From an investor’s standpoint, what makes a longevity innovation truly investable today? Many startups pitch anti-aging ideas – what must they have to catch your interest and funding?

Stefan Catsicas: Excellent question. As an investor, I’m looking for a blend of strong science and clear business fundamentals. First, the science: the startup needs a compelling idea backed by solid evidence – something addressing aging in a novel way, but also grounded in biology we understand. For example, targeting a well-researched aging mechanism (like senescent cells, epigenetic changes, or stem cell exhaustion) with a new approach is intriguing if they have data to back it up. A mere hypothesis (“we think this molecule could extend lifespan”) isn’t enough. We often say to entrepreneurs: funding is out there if you bring strong science to the table. So show us your pilot studies, your mechanism of action, your best data.

Second, a path to market is crucial. Longevity investors have learned to be both optimistic and practical. We aren’t interested in funding a science project that might pay off in 15 years – we need to see how this innovation becomes a product or therapy in a reasonable timeframe. In fact, at our fund we decided to avoid pitches that begin with “We have a molecule that could one day...”. If it requires a decade of R&D and hundreds of millions before the first human benefit, that’s outside our scope. We favor companies with a clear roadmap to deliver a product within, say, three to five years. That might mean starting with a shorter-term application or a digital component or focusing on healthspan improvements that can be measured in the near term. We also look at whether the company has a strategy for regulatory approval or clinical validation early on. The FDA is now reviewing dozens of anti-aging drug applications, which shows the field is maturing – but it also means startups must engage regulators and design proper trials. A venture that understands the regulatory pathway and has planful steps to get there is far more investable than one that hand-waves those details.

Third, intellectual property and market fit matter. Does the startup have patents or other IP to protect their innovation? If it’s just another supplement anyone can make, that’s not compelling for investment. Longevity startups that secure strong IP, demonstrate a clear path to approval, and prove there’s real market demand stand out to top-tier investors. We also examine the team closely – do they have the right expertise (scientific and commercial) to execute? Ultimately, an investable longevity innovation is one that pairs groundbreaking yet credible science with a solid strategy to turn that science into a tangible product or service people will pay for. When those pieces align, you have our attention.

Simone Gibertoni: The field of longevity is broad, covering biotechnology, AI, nutrition, and more. In your view, which longevity technologies or approaches are the most promising right now? What excites you in terms of actually extending healthy lifespan?

Stefan Catsicas: We truly are seeing a renaissance in longevity science, with multiple fronts advancing. Let me highlight a few areas I find particularly promising:

• Epigenetic Reprogramming: This is arguably one of the hottest areas. The idea is to reset cells to a more youthful state by tweaking their gene expression patterns. It sounds like science fiction, but we have compelling evidence it can work – for instance, a landmark experiment at the Salk Institute showed that partially reprogrammed mice with a premature aging syndrome lived 30% longer. Since then, investors have poured over a billion dollars into reprogramming startups, and we might see the first human trials soon. The potential to reverse aging in cells – not just slow it – could be a game-changer if we can solve safety issues. I’m cautiously optimistic here.
• Senolytics and Cellular Clean-up: Another exciting avenue is targeting senescent cells – those “zombie” cells that accumulate with age and drive inflammation. The first generation of senolytic drugs had setbacks – one high-profile osteoarthritis trial failed to beat placebo. But that failure taught us a lot about choosing the right targets and outcomes. New senolytics and approaches to boost our natural cleanup processes (like autophagy) are in development. If we can safely clear senescent cells or renew our cells’ recycling systems, we could potentially prevent many age-related issues at the root.
• Advanced Regenerative Therapies: This includes stem cell therapies, tissue engineering, and even organoids. The regenerative medicine market is booming towards an expected $150 billion by 2030. We already see successes in narrow uses (for example, stem cell transplants for certain immune or blood conditions) . For longevity, the holy grail would be regenerating aged tissues – imagine restoring an 80-year-old’s heart or liver to how it functioned a few decades earlier. We’re not there yet, but incremental progress (like improving muscle strength or vision in older patients via gene therapy) is happening . These technologies hold enormous promise if they can be made safe and scalable.
• AI and Data-Driven Discovery: On a different front, we are excited by how artificial intelligence is boosting longevity research. AI-driven drug discovery is cutting down the time to find new geroprotective compounds by huge margins – some say by 70% or more. Similarly, AI is helping identify biomarkers of aging (biological age indicators) much faster and more precisely. This is crucial because to intervene in aging, we need ways to measure it. AI can sift massive health data to find patterns or targets that humans might miss. I see AI as an accelerant – it’s not an intervention by itself, but it’s making every other approach (from drug discovery to personalized nutrition) move faster and more effectively.
• Precision Nutrition and Microbiome: There’s growing evidence that dietary interventions and the gut microbiome have significant impacts on lifespan and healthspan. Companies using high-throughput data to tailor nutrition plans or develop compounds that mimic the effects of calorie restriction (so-called CR mimetics) are really interesting. For example, research on NAD+ boosters (like NR or NMN) shows mixed results, but those supplements have huge popularity. The key will be pairing them with science – maybe personalizing supplementation based on one’s genetics or microbiome. I’m optimistic that combining precision nutrition, gut health, and continuous monitoring can yield practical longevity gains for many people. See for example the US-startup, now mature, Prolon. The challenge will be to protect those inventions and drive compliance with users (or patients) with tangible changes in key aging biomarkers – even before any disease has strike.

Those are a few areas, but the list could go on – from immunotherapies for aging to telomere biology. Importantly, I think the most promising strategy will ultimately be a stack of interventions. Aging is multifactorial. We might take senolytics periodically, undergo a gene therapy or reprogramming treatment once it’s safe, use AI-guided personalized diets, and monitor our biological age with smart devices. The future of longevity will likely be multi-modal, and that’s exciting because it means we have many opportunities. As an investor and scientist, I’m watching where the evidence grows strongest, but these areas I mentioned have me especially hopeful.

Simone Gibertoni: We see both nimble startups and big established companies entering the longevity arena. In your experience, what advantages do startups have in this space that larger firms might lack? Where do you see agility coming into play?

Stefan Catsicas: Great point – this is something I’ve experienced firsthand, having been in a large corporate and now working closely with startups. Startups bring agility and a willingness to take risks that big companies often can’t match. In a longevity startup, if new research points in a promising direction, the team can pivot quickly, try an unconventional experiment, or adopt the latest technology without layers of bureaucracy. That freedom to rapidly iterate is vital in an emerging field like longevity, where the playbook is still being written.

Large companies, by contrast, are generally more conservative. They have established product lines and shareholders (and analysts) to satisfy, so they tend to focus on incremental improvements or proven markets. Many big pharmaceutical or nutrition companies have been hesitant to label anything as an “aging cure” because it sounds speculative. In fact, some major players avoid the word “longevity” entirely in their R&D, for fear of over-promising. This caution means truly radical anti-aging research often starts in academia or startups. A small company can form around a breakthrough discovery – say a new gene therapy for muscle rejuvenation – and dedicate itself 100% to that moonshot. They don’t have an existing billion-dollar product they might cannibalize; their success rides on making the new innovation work. The drawback, is that young companies may fail, and the majority do, while larger companies are here to stay.

Another agility factor is talent and culture. Startups in longevity often attract mission-driven scientists and entrepreneurs who are okay wearing multiple hats. The team might consist of a professor, an AI expert, a clinician – all brainstorming together in one lab. That interdisciplinary, fast-paced culture can spark creative solutions. In a big corporation, departments are often siloed; the nutrition division might not talk to the AI analytics team, etc. Startups collapse those silos by necessity.

This isn’t to say large companies have no role – they have resources and scale which are crucial for later stages. In fact, I foresee partnerships where big pharma or big tech acquires or funds the successful longevity startups to bring things to market globally. But early on, the disruptive ideas are coming from the little guys.

One more thought: agility also means resilience through failure. In a startup, if an experiment fails, it’s painful but you learn and adapt by next week. In a large firm, a high-profile project failure can lead to budget cuts or years of delay. For longevity – a field with high scientific uncertainty – I’ll put my money on those who can fail fast, learn, and iterate. That’s one definition of real entrepreneurs.

Simone Gibertoni: Thank you Stefan! This first half of our conversation highlights the importance of scientific rigor, strategic thinking, and market readiness in the world of longevity innovation. As the field rapidly evolves, separating hype from credible opportunity is essential — and it’s precisely this mindset that drives the CLP Longevity Fund*. In Part II, we’ll take the discussion further: from turning discoveries into real-world impact, to what makes a founder investable, and which bold bets may shape the future of human health. Stay tuned next week as we continue to unlock the next frontier of longevity.