From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Mon Jul 21 2003 - 01:58:00 MDT
From: Brett Paatsch [mailto:bpaatsch@bigpond.net.au]
> I am not sure myself though that the overhyping is always as
> much as a problem as it is held to be. I guess it depends on
> the individual case.
>
> In which *particular* respects do you think hyped statements
> like Zey's may be more harmful than helpful?
Well, since we're already discussing aging in another thread, I think
this is a perfect example.
Why did several very good researchers on aging sign onto the position
paper in SciAm? Because for every person making statements about the
future of human longevity that are grounded in some sort of plausible
scientific comprehension of the field, there are hundreds who are
talking nonsense. Many of those talking nonsense are making money
from it.
This drives reasonable scientists in the field nuts, and incents them
to put as much distance between themselves and the "kooks" who are
talking about radical life extension as possible. This happens to the
extent that reasonable scientists substantially understate their true
expectations of the field, for fear of being tarred with the "kook"
brush.
If Zey had gotten up and pointed to the current research that supports
the idea that the rate of aging in humans can be tweaked, I'd feel
differently and more positively towards his talk. If he had done this
AND had also provided the various caveats and counter-arguments
against current evidence, I'd be downright impressed. But when,
instead, someone makes predictions of "immortality" based on highly
improbable evidence or a poor understanding of current research, it
just hurts the credibility of the people more seriously working
towards or analyzing the possibility of substantial lengthening of
human life.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jul 21 2003 - 02:06:22 MDT