Constance Holden accurately describes the range of opinions in the field of aging research concerning the possible efficacy of future life-extension technologies and the lack of any antiaging medicines today (Bodybuilding: The Bionic Human, “The quest to reverse time's toll,” 8 Feb., p. [1032][1]). However, it is crucial to be aware that the term “antiaging” means different things to different people and that in spite of its misuse by some, the term can be and has been used by reputable scientists conducting research designed to understand and eventually modify the rate of aging ([1][2]). There are thousands of legitimate scientific publications devoted to the study of aging, and we enthusiastically support such research, as successful efforts to delay the onset of age-related chronic diseases and frailty have the potential to yield dramatic improvements in the health of older persons. This legitimate effort must be clearly distinguished from the antiaging quackery that has made its way into the contemporary lay literature. For example, two so-called scientific “journals” ( Journal of Longevity and The International Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine ) that appear on the surface to be traditional refereed publications are in fact little more than advertisements for a pseudoscientific antiaging industry. By contrast, the similarly titled Journal of Anti-Aging Medicine is a refereed scientific journal. We want to make sure that the public is aware of both the scientific and the nonscientific use of the term “antiaging medicine.” Those currently selling what they term “antiaging medicines” are promoting the use of products that may in some cases diminish the risk of certain diseases but that have not been shown even modestly to reduce the acceleration of mortality with age in the general population and that in some instances may be harmful ([2][3]). This misuse of the term “antiaging medicine” has led many scientists (including some of the undersigned) to shy away from using the term at all, for fear of guilt by association. The term “longevity science and medicine” was recently introduced by a group of scientists now working in the field ([3][4]), but the fear remains that this term will be coopted by the pseudoscientific antiaging industry as well. As such, we urge the scientific and lay population to be sure that they understand that there are currently no scientifically proven antiaging medicines, but that legitimate and important scientific efforts are under way to develop them. 1. [↵][5]A short list of examples can be found at [www.src.uchicago.edu/∼gavr1/antiaging-publications.html][6]. 2. [↵][7]General Accounting Office, Anti-aging products pose potential for physical and economic harm, Special Committee on Aging, GAO-01-1129, September 2001 ( ). 3. [↵][8]Workshop Report: Is There an Anti-aging Medicine?, International Longevity Center, Canyon Ranch Series, New York, 2001 ([www.ilcusa.org/_lib/pdf/pr20011101.pdf][9]). [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.295.5557.1032 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: http://www.src.uchicago.edu/~gavr1/antiaging-publications.html [7]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [8]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text" [9]: http://www.ilcusa.org/_lib/pdf/pr20011101.pdf