Anders Sandberg wrote:
>Robin Hanson <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> The journal Nature has lot of aging articles this week:
>It is interesting to see that while the other reviews show some
>amazing results in all areas of aging reasearch, Leonard Hayflick has
>the audacity to start his review with the claim that no notable
>advances has occured in our understanding of the aging
>process. Overall he comes across as an apologist for aging and
>death. Quite sad.
He's right that looking at gerontology as a whole, progresses have been
minimal when compared, for instance, with cancer research. And his efforts
to bring more attention -- i.e. money -- into aging research should be
praised. (It's an interesting perspective that of claiming gerontology a
failure so far and therefore its need for more funding). Regarding his views
on aging, he has been a conservative scientist for a long time. But then
again, most gerontologists are like that (from personal experience).
Joao Pedro de Magalhaes
The University of Namur (FUNDP)
Unit of Cellular Biochemistry & Biology
Rue de Bruxelles, 61. B-5000 Namur. Belgium.
Fax: + 32 81 724135
Phone: + 32 81 724133
Reason's Triumph: http://users.compaqnet.be/jpnitya/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:21 MDT