The Challenges Inherent in Understanding a Fast-Moving, Developing Field

This messy popular science article is an essay length expression of futility on the part of a journalist who accepts that he is not equipped to understand the field of aging research and the longevity industry that has arisen in the past decade. One can talk to the talking heads, but they will all say something different. One can look for proof of efficacy for specific approaches, and find only contradictory data, or only compelling animal data, or only small effect sizes, and a lack of the sort of certainty that arises from large human trials. Those trials are still in the future for near every approach to the treatment of aging that might work. Like most tours of the field written by journalists, the article lumps together terrible approaches, promising approaches, approaches with good supporting data, approaches with mixed to bad supporting data, and makes little attempt to distinguish between them. The journalist cannot distinguish between them, he doesn't have the several years of learning the science that would be needed to even start to have a useful opinion on approach A versus approach B. For the layman it is just a list, and those most willing to talk about the list are those with a vested interest in profiting from companies working on one item or another item, or are scientist with career prospects that require them to be overly cautious in their public pronouncements. Objectivity is hard to find. The Wild Science of Growing Younger There are...
Source: Fight Aging! - Category: Research Authors: Tags: Healthy Life Extension Community Source Type: blogs