|
I'm interested to see where this line of research goes. Given that this paper was published in Cell, and the preceding one was published in Nature, I think we can rule out gross negligence in the writeup. I can't speak to all your points, but I can speak to a couple. There was no claim that the whole mouse was rejuvenated, so far as I can tell. The only metrics they presented on actual rejuvenation were some chemical markers in a couple of organs - heart and liver, IIRC. In a CNN interview published ~5 days ago, Sinclair points out that he hasn't yet figured out how to deliver the OSK to the whole organism - which is presumably why he's only demonstrated rejuvenation at very localized sites. He also mentions that another team has figured it out, and did actually manage to extend a mouse's lifespan (see my other post with the CNN link). Thus, > How is the mouse younger if it doesn't live longer? It isn't, because it doesn't, because the study didn't aim to show that. > Yet, the whole organism is "rejuvenated"? Again, no. That was not the claim, according to the actual published article. So I think you missed a couple things. Probably not "willfully". I may have the advantage of you, though, because I did manage to find a copy of the Cell article itself (and I did a bit of additional digging). |