Hevolution CEO Mehmood Khan on mapping the next five years of healthspan science and shifting from passive funding to strategic direction.

The publication of Hevolution’s second Global Healthspan Report earlier this month added fresh momentum to a field that has long argued for better data, clearer policy signals and more sustained investment. The report’s analysis – spanning trial activity, demographic risk, capital flows and shifting public attitudes – sets out a landscape in which healthspan is no longer a niche concern but an economic and societal imperative. It is also a landscape in which Hevolution has become, by sheer scale, one of the most influential actors.

Founded only five years ago and already the largest non-governmental funder of aging biology, Hevolution now sits at a strategic crossroads. With more than 250 research grants, multiple translational partnerships and four early biotech investments already in the clinic, the organization is preparing its “2.0” phase: a shift from open-call grantmaking to more directed, mission-led programmes. In the wake of the Global Healthspan Report, Longevity.Technology spoke to CEO Dr Mehmood Khan about funding gaps, global scientific geography and how public appetite for prevention may shape the next decade.

Longevity.Technology: The Global Healthspan Report, which was authored by our team, arrives at a time when governments are grappling with aging populations, strained healthcare budgets and rising consumer expectations; evidence-led analysis that connects prevention with economic reality is therefore timely. Reports of this breadth matter because they translate a sprawling, sometimes fragmented field into something that policymakers, investors and public health leaders can actually use; they also remind us that healthspan is a systems challenge – scientific, demographic and financial – rather than a single-pill solution. If the longevity sector is to mature, it will require precisely this kind of synthesis: sober, data-rich and unafraid to highlight both opportunity and shortfall.

Mehmood Khan on… Shifting from passive funding to directed scientific strategy

We stepped back after the Healthspan Summit and asked ourselves where the science really needs to go next. We now have about 250 research grants, and after reviewing more than 2,000 proposals, it became clear that we must avoid duplication and identify the gaps the field isn’t addressing. In this next phase, we are moving from a passive model – send us your best ideas and we will score them – to mission-focused partnerships. That means choosing strategic areas, finding the true experts and asking them to build multi-center teams around the questions that matter.

Demographic pressure and the urgency of acting early

Vision 2030 makes healthy aging a national ambition, but the demographic reality creates urgency. While the population is young today, the birth rate is now just over two, below replacement, and the burden of metabolic disease is high. Without action, this younger generation will age without an equally large cohort behind it. We need to intervene in the young population now, not wait to see the patterns already seen in Europe, North America and Japan repeat themselves.

Global scientific ecosystems and where innovation is emerging

The US will remain the largest ecosystem in the foreseeable future, given its concentration of capital, biotech startups and academic output. But we are seeing the balance shift as Europe, the Middle East and Asia increase their interest in biotech, and the real wildcard is China. Look at the rise in top-tier journal publications from Chinese institutions and the surge in licensing deals between big pharma and Chinese startups. Those trends suggest a global rebalancing of innovation rather than a simple shift from one region to another.

GLP-1s, investment appetite and the so-called biotech winter

There is clearly more interest in investing in this space, even if doubling investment comes from a relatively small base. We are seeing other sources of private capital investing alongside us in the companies we backed early, which is a positive sign. The number of clinical trials is growing too – there are now 30 human senolytic trials underway, and one or two successes could create the same kind of momentum we saw with GLP-1s. But the biotech industry’s total market cap is still eclipsed by digital companies, so there is a long way to go before capital truly rebalances. Time horizons matter; GLP-1s took decades to reach this point, while AI rose in ten years, so expectations must be realistic.

Policy leadership, long-term planning and shifting health systems

Some parts of the world have an advantage because leadership does not change every three to five years, allowing for both short-term and long-term planning. Younger populations in these regions tend to have high trust in technology and are very comfortable sharing data, which makes national deployment more feasible. What matters now is how we move from sick care to healthcare, because that is the strategic shift that will determine whether these technologies benefit society. We don’t lobby, but we provide the scientific, public health and economic evidence policymakers need, and we see growing interest from governments who want to understand this landscape. Strong leadership will be essential, and there is considerable support for that in parts of the Middle East and Asia, as well as examples like Singapore lowering the age for preventive care from 60 to 40.

Images courtesy of Hevolution Foundation