Natural Gas to Offer Breakthrough in Suspended Animation?

Kingcanute writes "The BBC is reporting that American scientists are claiming that sewer gas may be successful at inducing suspended animation. The results were achieved using mice but further studies are needed" From the article: "The problem with hypothermia is it's not that easy to cool down the human body so if we can find another method to inhibit metabolism that would be very useful"

Comments

Science in Motion

[nog_lorp]

I disagree that this is incomplete science. This is the way science works. Scientists do a study, publish their results, and get overexcited about what the implications could be. Other scientists do peer-review, make sure the study is on the level, and suggest what could improve data quality, and further experiments to test/revise current hypotheses. Also, I think you are too quick to blame the scientists behind a study for what is usually oversimplified reporting.

Re:Science in Motion

[BWJones]

I am well aware of how science works as I am a scientist who has spent some time working in the metabolic space. What I am objecting to is the fact that this was brought to the press before they really understood what was going on, bringing back memories of cold fusion and all that. Furthermore, it sounds like other scientists who have reviewed the paper are asking similar questions, so...... no, I don't think I am being too quick to criticize the study. Before making claims such as these, there simply needs to be more work done, and one should not do this kind of science in the popular press. That is what I was objecting to.

Re:Science in Motion

[CRCulver]

Other scientists do peer-review, make sure the study is on the level, and suggest what could improve data quality, and further experiments to test/revise current hypotheses.

Peer review should be done before the research reaches the public, not after. The point of peer review is to prevent indefensible or incomplete research from publication.

Re:Science in Motion

[shaitand]

"and one should not do this kind of science in the popular press."

Especially when one is competing for the same funding as you? Whether they excite the press or not has no impact on the validity or lack thereof of the study or the results. Your other points do, although they are all additional research and tests to be performed, nothing you said actually detracts from the work that has already been done.

Stoking the press is entirely about funding, and all is fair in love and funding. After all, if your results are exciting enough to make headlines, they are exciting enough to pay for.

Re:Science in Motion

[BWJones]

Actually, they are not remotely in the same funding structure as we are and we are not competing for the same research funds. It just so happens that the technologies we've developed are able to inform metabolic questions to a degree other technologies cannot even hope to touch. However, we are applying them to entirely different questions.

Stoking the press is entirely about funding, and all is fair in love and funding.

Actually, that is not the way I prefer to work. Only after the work has been done and you are confident of your results do you go to the scientific press, then the popular press.