The meeting largely comprised a series of half-hour discussions, each led by a different participant who is a world leader in his or her field. The overall moderator of the meeting was de Grey. Areas covered included reversal of cell loss (especially in brain, muscle and various glands), reversal of somatic DNA damage or its effects (including mitochondrial mutations), reversal of decline in cellular proliferative potential (in various cell types, including fibroblasts and osteoblasts) and reversal of accumulation of cross-linked, unrecycled macromolecules (both in the extracellular medium and within lysosomes). All these topics have seen very significant biotechnological advances in recent years, which have attracted too little attention in the highest-profile science media. They lead us to believe that a dramatic extension of maximum lifespan in mammals may be much nearer than many of our colleagues contend.

Each half-hour discussion revolved around the expertise of a single participant, the discussion leader, who began their discussion with a few-minute introduction. The "product" of each discussion was a list of projects which (a) are directed to reversing the aspect of aging that was discussed, (b) either are ongoing already (though in need of more exposure/funding) or can be initiated now at a realistic funding level, and (c) could be planned as engineering rather than basic science projects, i.e. it can be stated in detail how they would be seen to completion (though unforeseen pitfalls are recognised to have a chance of arising).

Following these discussions, the meeting addressed the relevance to society of progress in the various research avenues outlined above, and the consequent implications for science policy in the USA and worldwide. Stock led the analysis of these matters. Faced with increasing hype about anti-aging breakthroughs in the popular press, the reaction of many professional biogerontologists has long been to declare that any substantial increase in the maximum human lifespan is absolutely unachievable. This has led to promotion of the concept of "successful aging", by which is meant (in the extreme) avoiding all age-related dysfunction until somewhat past the present average lifespan and then dying in one’s sleep while in good health. The desirability of "successful aging" as a goal of biogerontology research has been widely embraced by professionals, but we believe that it is grossly misguided. Not only is it biologically much more implausible than extending maximum lifespan, but it is also very far from what elderly people actually see as desirable—the fitter they are, the more they wish to live, irrespective of how old they are. Thus, the public and professional policy regarding biogerontology research is in severe need of re-evaluation, since it does not presently reflect public aspirations. The urgency of such a re-evaluation is heightened by the fact that reversal of aging in rodents will occur long before such technology can be applied to humans, but will trigger an immediate shift of public perception regarding the malleability of human aging, with dramatic consequences for society.