Wow. Now that is an example of a good study. No "take an existing dataset and do some basic statistics" here.

Extensive research had to go into finding the right questions to ask, research to get the data, cleaning and organizing the data, and then finding the right analysis to answer the questions. As a non-expert in this field, I'm impressed by the readability of the paper.

To be honest, I'd be surprised if similar results were not found in other fields.

Doesn't this sort of thing present a problem for the idea of life extension? Death serves important roles.

Absolutely, particularly for tenured positions that are for-life, you are creating a constipation effect where the old, much less active researchers are just hanging out occupying space that could be used for a new, more productive faculty. Our university just cleared room for one more faculty after the emeritus died at the age of 92.

Personally I don't think life extension is a good or even a meaningful thing unless we're also extending the quality and vitality of life. Any kind of extreme life extension must also include measures for restoring neural plasticity, etc.

As it stands you sort of die before you die. Your brain stops forming new connections and settles into its present state, which basically means you can't learn. Some kind of neural "reset button" would be a requirement.

One of my darker fears about aging is that we basically become "philosophical zombies" at some point before we die.

Yes it does. It could also argue for a diaspora to other parts of the solar system or universe. Humanity feels too penned up already. Doubling the life expectancy would make it at least linearly worse.

You don't really have to kill people to remove them from the field. You could just force them to switch to a new study area after a time.

Even if true, it's progress, considering for how many centuries Aristotle's ghost impeded science.

I do wonder if number of papers published is an accurate measure of scientific progress, just as when talking about the tech industry I would disagree with saying that the most innovative company is defined by the one with the most patents granted.

Unfortunately the study is limited to life scientists. Generalizing the findings to all of science is a bold statement that needs more evidence than this study can provide.