Topline:
Longevity research is booming. Scientists are looking for ways to target the basic biology of aging. And here's the exciting part: Our biological age appears to be malleable.
Why it matters: Many scientists are optimistic that we're on the cusp of breakthroughs. Not only to help us live longer, but — more importantly — to extend the number of years we live with good health.
Read more ... to get some of the scientific breakdown of, well, breaking down over time.
I used to flinch at the topic of aging. Is there anything we can do about the inevitable?
But recently I've been digging into a new wave of longevity research that is making it an exciting time to be an aging human, which is all of us.
It turns out, we all age at varying rates. Super-agers may have great genes, but research shows our habits and routines — everything from what we eat and how we move our bodies to who we spend our time with — matter a lot, when it comes to aging well.
Now, the next frontier is to target the basic biology of aging and come up with new interventions to slow it down.
Many scientists are optimistic that we're on the cusp of breakthroughs. Not only to help us live longer, but — more importantly — to extend the number of years we live with good health.
This is the goal of researchers at the Human Longevity Lab at the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. They're recruiting study participants so they can test what kinds of interventions may slow the rate of aging. To that end, I decided to roll up my sleeve for science.
When I arrived, the first step was a quick blood draw. The Potocsnak Longevity Institute is housed on the light-filled 21st floor of Northwestern Memorial Hospital, overlooking Lake Michigan. It felt more like a spa than a doctor's office. I didn't anticipate the vast range of data and insights scientists could glean from a battery of tests.
Over a four-hour period, they performed more than two dozen assessments. At first it felt a bit like an annual physical. They checked my blood pressure, weight, glucose and cholesterol.
But then, the tests got a lot more interesting. Inside a small exam room, a medical assistant opened the hinge of a BodPod, a capsule that looks like a submersible. The machine assessed my body composition, determining the ratio of fatty mass to lean mass, which includes muscle. Strength is a key marker of healthy aging, helping us fend off frailty and falls.
Next, I was asked to sniff and identify a range of distinct smells — from leather to chocolate — to test olfactory function. The loss of smell can be an early sign of disease and cognitive decline. They scanned my retina and took digital images of the inside of my eyes, which can also help detect disease. And I took a memory and cognitive function test, called MOCA. Thankfully, all was healthy.
Then I went through a slew of cardiovascular health tests. They measured my endothelial function, which keeps blood flowing smoothly through the body. They looked at my heart rate variability and pulse-wave velocity, which is an indicator of stiffness of the arteries. I had electrodes placed onto my chest for an electrocardiogram.
Midway through I was feeling a bit nervous, and my mind raced to what ifs.
Of all the tests they performed, the most intriguing is the GrimAge test. This test predicts biological age. It's gauging whether your DNA age is younger, or older, than your actual age, known as chronological age. Conjure images of the Grim Reaper? Yep, that's the idea: The test can estimate how quickly, or slowly, you're aging.
To figure this out, researchers use a technique based on DNA methylation, which is a measure of modifications in our DNA. Basically, as we age, compounds called methyl groups attach to some of our DNA molecules, which can turn genes on or off. Researchers have shown that the higher the proportion of methylated DNA in certain locations, the more accelerated a person's biological age. Published research suggests this is a reliable way to predict life span and health span.
No one wants to find out they're aging faster than their peers, right? But here's the exciting part. Our biological age may be malleable. The hope is that we can slow down our rate of aging — by making changes to lifestyle. Down the line, there may be anti-aging pills or other interventions.
For researchers, the GrimAge test isn't just a way to estimate DNA age. It's a tool to study whether interventions can alter it.
"That's the big ray of optimism that comes through all of this — the possibility that we can slow down aging and extend the health span of people," says Dr. Douglas Vaughan, director of the Longevity Institute. Health span is the number of years we live with good health. "It can be changed very rapidly in experimental models and probably in people, too," he says.
For example, smoking has a very strong effect on methylation. "Tens of thousands of locations gain methylation when you smoke," explains researcher Steven Horvath, who developed the epigenetic clock used as part of the GrimAge test. People with obesity also exhibit higher methylation at certain locations. "Conversely, if you eat vegetables, if you are lean, if you exercise, that slows methylation age," he explains.
Now, of course, it's long been known that smoking and eating poorly are bad for you. But researchers can now test specific interventions to see if it's possible to move the needle.
Vaughan's deep interest in aging took off when he identified a distinct genetic variant in an Amish community in Indiana. People who have the variant are protected from diabetes and have healthier cardiovascular systems compared to people who don't. In the laboratory, when Vaughan engineered mice to have only a 50% level of a protein associated with this mutation, their life spans increased by nearly fourfold. "This was a eureka moment," he says.
He tells his current medical students that in their careers they will prescribe interventions to slow down biological aging in their patients.
"I don't know exactly what that's going to be. It might be a drug. It might be a lifestyle intervention, for all I know it might be gene editing," Vaughan says. "But there are going to be ways that we are going to slow down this process and give people a longer health span."
People who live in the upscale Chicago neighborhood where the Human Longevity Lab is located can expect to live a much longer, healthier life compared to people who live just a few miles away. Vaughan wants to help close this gap.
"I'm worried about the poor soul in south Chicago who has a life expectancy of 55, compared to 92 in the neighborhood where we're standing right now," he says. A stunning difference of more than 30 years. (You can check out life expectancy in your ZIP code here.)
A lot of factors play into this life expectancy gap including poverty, housing, stress and crime, which can all work against health span.
Vaughan and his collaborators are enrolling people from a wide range of ages, ethnic groups, neighborhoods and socioeconomic status to see what works to slow biological aging for everybody.
"There are lots of people who've been dealt a bad hand with regard to aging," Vaughan says. Their goal is to find affordable, evidence-based interventions that can benefit everyone, regardless of socioeconomic status.
For example, there's interest in studying stress, which Vaughan says could be "part of the reason for the discrepancy in the life expectancy in different neighborhoods of Chicago." To study this, he could measure people's biological age at baseline, have them try a stress-reduction program, and test again to see if their results changed.
Vaughan is also interested in studying people with chronic HIV, who tend to age at an accelerated rate. A charitable gift from a Chicago family with a shared interest helped launch the institute. Vaughan's team is considering a range of interventions to test whether they can slow down aging in this population.
"It might be weight training, it might be intermittent fasting, it might be dietary manipulations, it might be drugs that are available now that might have anti-aging effects," Vaughan explains, citing the diabetes drug metformin.
Longevity and health span research is attracting lots of funding and attention, from places like the Hevolution Foundation, which provides grants and early stage investments, and Altos Labs, a biotechnology company, founded by Dr. Rick Klausner, which is investigating ways to reprogram or rejuvenate cells.
Dozens of groups have signaled their intent to compete in the $101 million X-PRIZE global competition focused on treatments that support healthy longevity — everything from new drugs or supplements, to devices, to repurposing old drugs for new uses.
"Teams have to come to the starting line and we're going to set up the frameworks by which they prove their therapeutic works," says XPRIZE's Jamie Justice, who is also a researcher at Wake Forest University School of Medicine.
Fortunately, my GrimAge score came back younger than my actual age, though I did get some surprises. I learned that my body composition isn't optimal. Turns out, I need to build more lean muscle mass, which is pretty common as we age — especially for women.
With muscle mass, if you don't use it, you lose it. After the age of 30 to 35, muscle starts to slowly decline. And after age 65 or so, this loss accelerates. So it's never too soon to start building a reserve. My goal for this year is to build muscle through resistance training and an optimal diet. And also, to reduce stress.
My experience in the longevity study has motivated me to get started on a new project: How To Thrive As You Age. We'll have more stories on healthy aging interventions coming soon.
As part of this project, we hope you'll share your healthy aging tips with us. What habits or lifestyle hacks have you've adopted to thrive as you age? Please use this form to share your thoughts or email us at Thrive@npr.org.
Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit npr.org.
Topline:
Now that the midterm results are in, could drivers see lower gasoline and diesel prices anytime soon? Not so fast, experts say. Here's why.
The backstory: Democrats are now poised to take control of Congress by wide margins — and a critical driver of their success has been voter fury about how the war in Iran has driven up the cost of fuel. Before the war, about one fifth of the world's oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz. As the war throttled that waterway, the price of oil rose: A barrel of Brent crude cost about $70 in late February, spent months hovering around the $110 mark, and is now close to $95.
What could Democrats do? The new Congressional Democrats will have the power to push the president to end the war in Iran, in part by making it harder to authorize new war spending. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-NY) told reporters on Wednesday that Democrats are intent on ending the war and bringing down the cost of living, saying that "relief is on the way."
Read on... for more on what the blue wave means for gas and diesel prices.
Democrats are now poised to take control of Congress by wide margins — and a critical driver of their success has been voter fury about how the war in Iran has driven up the cost of fuel.
Before the war, about one fifth of the world's oil passed through the Strait of Hormuz. As the war throttled that waterway, the price of oil rose: A barrel of Brent crude cost about $70 in late February, spent months hovering around the $110 mark, and is now close to $95.
That's driven up the price of everything that's refined from crude. A gallon of gas costs $4.12 on average — about $1 higher than a year ago. The price of diesel hit a record high in September at $6.52, and while it's fallen a bit since then, a gallon remains about $2.50 higher than this time last year, according to AAA.
These soaring prices helped major oil companies rake in huge profits over the past two quarters, while making the cost of fuel at the pump uncomfortably high for drivers, and boosting the price of nearly everything in a nation that is heavily reliant on trucking.
So now that the midterm results are in, could drivers see lower gasoline and diesel prices anytime soon?
Not so fast, experts say. Here's why.
Nothing yet — members of the new Congress won't be sworn in until January.
And once they are seated, U.S. legislators have limited powers to directly affect the price of oil, which is dictated by a complex global market.
In the run-up to the election, most of the actions taken by the federal government to lower fuel prices came through the White House, not Congress. Hoping to stave off losses for his party, President Trump tried to ease the cost of diesel by loosening federal rules on dyed diesel, which is normally used for farming. He also announced a deal that would bring more Russian diesel to global markets, including the U.S., by temporarily lifting sanctions. Neither of these did much to move the needle.
But the new Congressional Democrats will have the power to push the president to end the war in Iran, in part by making it harder to authorize new war spending. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D.-NY) told reporters on Wednesday that Democrats are intent on ending the war and bringing down the cost of living, saying that "relief is on the way."
"What a unified Democratic Congress can do is make escalation considerably more costly: both chambers can pass resolutions, attach conditions to war spending and hold back confirmations of key officials," Claudio Galimberti, chief economist of Rystad Energy, wrote in a market note to the media.
Still, the president has veto power over legislation, as well as executive powers. " President Trump still retains full discretionary authority over military strikes, over blockades and sanctions, licenses, and so on," said Jorge León, head of geopolitical analysis at Rystad Energy, in an interview with NPR.
Trump has sent mixed messages about whether he wants to end or escalate the war. In the past few weeks, he warned Gulf Arab countries to prepare for a new military campaign after the midterms. The U.S. struck Qeshm, an island in the Strait of Hormuz that Iran uses to launch its own strikes, on Nov. 2.
But on election night, Trump told The New York Times that he knew voters were unhappy about gas prices. And the next day, as the extent of the election rout became clear, Vice President JD Vance posted on social media: "The reason we lost is the war."
Jaime Brito, executive director of refining and oil markets for Dow Jones Energy, says if there's a deal to end the war, traders could be very excited. Brito said they might look for formal announcements from both Iran and the U.S. that the strait is reopening, and that both sides are pulling back their military presence in the area.
If market traders are convinced the peace will last? "If that scenario happens, then I personally see crude prices dropping, you know, $15, $20 [a barrel] immediately, in the next two, three days from the announcement," he said.
But for gasoline and diesel prices to fall, too, oil would have to start moving again. Ships that have been running long, alternative routes to avoid passing through the Strait of Hormuz would have to return to their points of origin, and then resume their former routes through the strait. León pointed out, that could lead to traffic jams.
From there, that crude will still need to be refined and make its way onto the market.
In the most optimistic scenario, Brito said, it could take three months after a ceasefire or deal is announced for gasoline and diesel prices to hit their prewar levels.
León thinks it would take more like six months for the price of crude to hit its prewar level, and then another month or two for gasoline and diesel to follow. But that's assuming all goes well. And, both of them said, there could be hiccups along the way that stretch the recovery timeline out for up to a year after a deal is announced.
" I don't want to say this, but, you know, expensive gasoline prices could be a new normal," Brito said.
The first big X factor: the war in Ukraine.
If Ukraine continues attacking Russian refineries, the price of diesel may not drop as precipitously as gasoline might. That's because Russia's refineries normally bring much of the world's diesel to global markets. Resuming traffic through the Strait of Hormuz will help lower the price of diesel — but it may take longer to reach its prewar level, León said.
Other scenarios could make for a less rosy picture, León said. U.S. refineries have been running above 90% capacity — what if they need emergency maintenance just at the moment when there's more oil ready to bring to market? Or, what if hostilities restart again, despite a deal?
Brito agreed. Before the end of the year, there could theoretically be new attacks in the strait, he wrote, "if the current administration sees it as a 'window' to complete unfinished tasks before the new Congressional layout takes their seat in January."
And there's also one more factor at play: The war has raised the price of moving oil itself around the world.
Since the Strait of Hormuz has been blocked off for so long, freight costs have gone up; ships carrying oil have had to skirt around the strait, take longer routes and use more fuel in the process. Plus, the price of insuring those ships has gone up, since transit around the strait has gotten so much riskier.
That means that even the oil industry is paying more to be in the oil business. And if hostilities persist and those freight costs remain high, that could keep the price of Brent crude elevated for longer.
"Bottom line," Brito wrote, for any hope of a return to normal prices, "you need to see a definitive end of the conflict."
Copyright 2026 NPR
Topline:
Billionaire Leon Black on Wednesday filed a federal defamation lawsuit against California Rep. Robert Garcia for public comments the Democratic congressman made tying him to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The backstory: The court filing comes less than two months after the House approved a resolution holding Black in contempt of Congress for defying the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas in its investigation into Epstein. In June, Black appeared for a voluntary interview at the committee during which he denied any knowledge of Epstein’s sex trafficking network. Weeks later, Garcia said during a TV interview that “Leon Black is at the center of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes” and that Black “was one of the last people to actually interact” with Epstein before he committed suicide in prison. In addition, Garcia said that he had “talked to survivors that have credibly named Leon Black as someone that was involved in direct abuse of women and was directly involved” with Epstein.
What's next: Those statements were false and were made maliciously, Black asserts through his lawyers. The defamation lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks a jury trial and $7.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages. “Congressman Garcia’s knowing lies have caused real and significant ongoing harm to Mr. Black. His physical safety has been threatened, he has received a barrage of hateful calls, emails, and social media posts, and his business and philanthropic endeavors have suffered,” the filing states. Garcia’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.
Billionaire Leon Black on Wednesday filed a federal defamation lawsuit against California Rep. Robert Garcia for public comments the Democratic congressman made tying him to disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein.
The court filing comes less than two months after the House approved a resolution holding Black in contempt of Congress for defying the Oversight Committee’s subpoenas in its investigation into Epstein.
In June, Black appeared for a voluntary interview at the committee during which he denied any knowledge of Epstein’s sex trafficking network.
Weeks later, Garcia said during a TV interview that “Leon Black is at the center of Jeffrey Epstein’s crimes” and that Black “was one of the last people to actually interact” with Epstein before he committed suicide in prison.
In addition, Garcia said that he had “talked to survivors that have credibly named Leon Black as someone that was involved in direct abuse of women and was directly involved” with Epstein.
Those statements were false and were made maliciously, Black asserts through his lawyers. The defamation lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York seeks a jury trial and $7.25 million in compensatory and punitive damages.
“Congressman Garcia’s knowing lies have caused real and significant ongoing harm to Mr. Black. His physical safety has been threatened, he has received a barrage of hateful calls, emails, and social media posts, and his business and philanthropic endeavors have suffered,” the filing states.
Garcia’s office didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment on the lawsuit.
In September, Garcia called the contempt resolution against Black “an important step toward justice and accountability.”
Black had refused to respond to subpoenas asking him to appear and to turn over any potential nondisclosure agreements involving the investigation into Epstein.
Black’s lawyers have repeatedly denounced the Oversight Committee’s pursuit of the former head of a private equity firm as an abuse of congressional power. They have maintained he had no knowledge of any of Epstein’s criminal conduct.
Black was among several prominent figures, including Bill Clinton and Bill Gates, who had been asked to appear as part of the Oversight Committee’s long-running probe of Epstein. Survivors of Epstein’s alleged sexual abuse have told personal stories of being young women in a trafficking enterprise organized by Epstein and his colleague Ghislaine Maxwell.
Black co-founded the private equity firm Apollo Global Management and stepped down in 2021 during the fallout over his ties to Epstein.
Lawmakers have alleged that Black paid Epstein $180 million during their yearslong relationship.
A 2021 review commissioned by Apollo found that Black paid Epstein $158 million from 2012 to 2017, after Epstein pleaded guilty in 2008 to soliciting prostitution from a minor. The review said the payments were for “bona fide tax, estate planning and other related services.”
Topline:
Chemical manufacturer 3M will pay up to $7.35 billion to settle lawsuits by people who say they were sickened by groundwater contamination from compounds used in firefighting foam and other consumer products.
What the settlement is about: The St. Paul, Minnesota-based company announced the settlement Tuesday. It will pay the money over nine years to as many as 120,000 people who say they were harmed by exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known collectively as PFAS. The chemicals contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports and other locations where the foam was used to extinguish fires. 3M did not admit liability for the contamination under the agreement.
The backstory: Called “forever chemicals” because they don’t degrade naturally in the environment, PFAS have been linked to health problems including liver and immune system damage and some cancers. The chemicals are also used in nonstick, water- and grease-resistant products, including clothing and cookware.
Chemical manufacturer 3M will pay up to $7.35 billion to settle lawsuits by people who say they were sickened by groundwater contamination from compounds used in firefighting foam and other consumer products.
The St. Paul, Minnesota-based company announced the settlement Tuesday. It will pay the money over nine years to as many as 120,000 people who say they were harmed by exposure to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, known collectively as PFAS. The chemicals contaminated groundwater near military bases, airports and other locations where the foam was used to extinguish fires.
3M did not admit liability for the contamination under the agreement.
Called “forever chemicals” because they don’t degrade naturally in the environment, PFAS have been linked to health problems including liver and immune system damage and some cancers. The chemicals are also used in nonstick, water- and grease-resistant products, including clothing and cookware.
3M chairman William Brown called the settlement a “significant milestone” that substantially reduces uncertainty from the litigation. The company previously reached settlements in other PFAS-related lawsuits, including a $450 million agreement with the state of New Jersey to settle claims of natural resource contamination and a deal to pay more than $10 billion to many U.S. public drinking water systems.
Other manufacturers, including DuPont de Nemours Inc. and spinoffs Chemours Co. and Corteva Inc., have agreed to settlements totaling more than $1 billion to resolve PFAS claims.
Fred Thompson, an attorney with the Motley Rice law firm that helped negotiate the 3M settlement for the plaintiffs, called it welcome news for “the thousands of victims who have sought answers and accountability for nearly a decade.”
He said in a news release that the plaintiffs urgently need help covering mounting medical bills and other costs.
Under the terms of the settlement, the payouts will begin with $50 million this year, followed by yearly payments of more than $1 billion each year from 2028 to 2033.
3M could make additional payments if enough plaintiffs participate. If too few sign on, 3M has the option to cancel the settlement and continue fighting the lawsuit.
Environmental activists say PFAS manufacturers knew about the chemicals’ health risks long before they became public. They noted that the same attributes that make the chemicals so valuable in many uses — resistance to breakdown — also make them hazardous to people.
The Environmental Protection Agency has set strict limits on PFAS in drinking water from public utilities and requires testing, but those rules do not apply to private wells.
A study that would help federal regulators understand which industries dump the forever chemicals with their wastewater has been stalled for two years, awaiting review by the White House Office of Management and Budget.
Topline:
Democrats' big wins in these midterm elections couldn't have happened without some massive voter shifts. Young voters, Latinos and Asian Americans, urban and suburban voters, men and independents all moved heavily to the left.
What else to know: Women were the fuel for Democrats' wins in these elections. They broke by 19 points for Democrats, 13 points wider than in 2024 and the best mark for the party since Trump's first midterm.
The backstory: In 2024, President Trump won a record share of Latino votes for a Republican presidential candidate. But they took a sharp left turn in this election after Trump's promises of lower prices never came to fruition and his administration's harsh deportation tactics backfired. Latinos swung 21 points toward Democratic House candidates, compared to two years ago.
Democrats' big wins in these midterm elections couldn't have happened without some massive voter shifts.
Young voters, Latinos and Asian Americans, urban and suburban voters, men and independents all moved heavily to the left.
Loading...
In 2024, President Trump won a record share of Latino votes for a Republican presidential candidate. But they took a sharp left turn in this election after Trump's promises of lower prices never came to fruition and his administration's harsh deportation tactics backfired.
Latinos swung 21 points toward Democratic House candidates, compared to two years ago.
Asian Americans also sharply diverged from 2024, also going 21 points more in Democrats' favor, from a 22-point advantage to a whopping 43.
Democrats even tied with white voters. To put that in perspective, Democrats haven't won white voters in a presidential election since 1964. Since then, they came closest in 1992 and 1996 when former President Bill Clinton lost them by 2 points both times and then in the 2006 midterms when Republicans won them by just 4.
Loading...
Democrats won this group of young voters by 48 points, a 34-point swing from two years ago.
To put in context just how dramatic of a margin that is — it's wider than for former President Barack Obama in 2008 when he won the youngest voters by 34 points. The difference in 2008 is they were 18% of the electorate, compared to 11% in this midterm.
Young voters traditionally have the biggest turnout drop from presidential to midterm elections of any group, so there are likely many Republican-leaning 18- to 29-year-olds who simply stayed home.
Loading...
Urban voters swung by 25 points in their favor, while voters in the suburbs, who had voted narrowly for Trump in 2024, went for Democrats by 19 points.
But Democrats can't win in red states without minimizing losses in small towns and rural areas. Democrats lost them by 16 points this year, a 16-point shift in their favor, compared with 2024, when they lost them by 32.
Loading...
Women were the fuel for Democrats' wins in these elections. They broke by 19 points for Democrats, 13 points wider than in 2024 and the best mark for the party since Trump's first midterm.
But the shift with men was notable. Democrats won men by 2 points, a 16-point shift from 2024 and the first time the party has won men since 2008. It's only the third time in 34 years that Democrats have won men.
The other time was in 1992 when Bill Clinton won them by 3 points, and that was with a third-party candidate in the race, Ross Perot, who won 19% of the national popular vote.
Loading...
The number to watch heading into Tuesday night for Republicans was 46%. That was the mark they needed with independents in order to do well. When they have hit that threshold in the Trump era, they have done well, winning the presidency in 2016 and 2024 and making gains in the House in 2022.
But when they were below it, they didn't do well, losing more than 40 seats in the House in 2018 and the presidency in 2020.
In these midterms, they didn't even get close. They only won 38% of independents, their worst mark since at least 1998 when independents viewed the impeachment investigation against Clinton as politically motivated and an overreach.
The only other time that comes close was in 2006 when they only won 39% of independents, and Democrats, like this year, won both the House and Senate.
Loading...
2026 data comes from a poll of tens of thousands of voters, conducted by the firm SSRS for a number of news outlets, including the Associated Press. The full sample has a margin of error of plus or minus 0.6 percentage points. Data may shift as votes and exit poll analysis are finalized.
2018-2024 data comes from exit polls conducted by Edison Research (now Edison Research at SSRS) for a number of news outlets. NPR accessed all data via results posted by CNN and ABC News.
2026 data combines results from in-person exit poll responses and a pre-election survey of voters, while 2018-2024 data combines results from in-person exit poll responses and responses from early and absentee voters.
Copyright 2026 NPR