As a biomedical researcher who has worked on cancer mechanisms in the past, I speak with some authority: these "breakthroughs" are a load of hooey. The popular press really loves it when some dinky little research group at Bumblefuck U. discovers a modest effect on cancer cells, HIV, etc. by some commonplace natural molecule. We've heard it about pineapples, green tea, broccoli, red wine, you name it. Usually these studies are conducted under extremely artificial conditions using tiny sample sizes and ambiguous assays. To be cynical, if researchers want to get a positive result, they can usually contrive some experimental condition where they'll observe said result.
I read Slashdot for interesting technology items but I have been very disappointed with the caliber of the biomedical coverage. There have been a number of stunning discoveries over the last few years (two that leap to mind are microRNA-mediated viral immunity and gene regulation or epigenetic memory in plants) that never made it to Slashdot because they require more than a high school level education in biology to appreciate. Evidently, mod points don't go to people with an advanced knowledge of biology. How would you feel if all of tech stories were press releases from Microsoft?
I have in fact read some of his papers. You can, too: go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=P ubMed and query for "de Grey AD."
The majority of these articles are in obscure theoretical journals far from the mainstream of science. I'm not certain that they're even peer-reviewed. Note that he is the single author of most of those publications, which typically indicates a lack of experimental data (experiments are usually performed by junior colleagues such as students and postdocs, but nobody in their right mind would work with this guy). All of his recent articles are simply commentaries and hypotheses, rather than experimental reports. Many take the form of polemic against other aging researchers and/or the biomedical establishment. Anyone with an academic position such as De Grey can publish this sort of thing and call it science, but I'm not aware of a single meaningful theoretical or experimental contribution to aging research made by De Grey. In our laboratory, he is a laughing stock, a byword for "crazy nutjob on an academic soapbox."
De Grey's ideas are so bizarre that their patent absurdity is evident to anyone with even a basic background in molecular biology. Read his papers and see for yourself.
I'm a postdoctoral researcher at a major US medical research center (i.e., not at the Banzai Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Strategic Information). Because I do aging research for a living, I'm familiar with Aubrey De Grey's so-called research. I can assure you that he is to legitimate, experimentally-based aging research what Rael is to cloning: an opportunistic, publicity-seeking fraud. Lots of hot air, zero experiments to back up his outrageous claims.
Actually, ubiquitination and targeted protein degradation are absolutely critical in making sure that the cell cycle proceeds as it should. Ubiquitination is one of the major "brakes" that halts the uncontrolled proliferation of cells, i.e. cancer.
In fact, pretty much every process in the cell in some way relates to cancer, since so many things have to go out of whack for tumors to develop. So it's a bit of weak sauce for the Nobel Committee to always point out the relevance of This Year's Winner's Work to cancer. At least Buck and Axel (the Smell People) are unabashedly non-clinical.
Over the years, there have been many studies that used a variety of experimental and epidemiological techniques to examine the effect of EMFs on health. The short answer is... there aren't any. The following recent review article summarizes the state of the field:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstrac t/89010981/START.
Unfortunately, zealots of the Mendocino variety have made themselves deaf to science... they rarely subscribe to the premises underlying the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation. No amount of negative data will convince these people that their "feelings" aren't "real."
A testament to the power of highly vocal cranks. For all of our belly-aching about online rights, DMCA, etc., we have much to learn from local wackos about how to effect political change. Today Mendecino, tomorrow the world!
Slashdot Mirror
As a biomedical researcher who has worked on cancer mechanisms in the past, I speak with some authority: these "breakthroughs" are a load of hooey. The popular press really loves it when some dinky little research group at Bumblefuck U. discovers a modest effect on cancer cells, HIV, etc. by some commonplace natural molecule. We've heard it about pineapples, green tea, broccoli, red wine, you name it. Usually these studies are conducted under extremely artificial conditions using tiny sample sizes and ambiguous assays. To be cynical, if researchers want to get a positive result, they can usually contrive some experimental condition where they'll observe said result. I read Slashdot for interesting technology items but I have been very disappointed with the caliber of the biomedical coverage. There have been a number of stunning discoveries over the last few years (two that leap to mind are microRNA-mediated viral immunity and gene regulation or epigenetic memory in plants) that never made it to Slashdot because they require more than a high school level education in biology to appreciate. Evidently, mod points don't go to people with an advanced knowledge of biology. How would you feel if all of tech stories were press releases from Microsoft?
I have in fact read some of his papers. You can, too: go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=P ubMed and query for "de Grey AD."
The majority of these articles are in obscure theoretical journals far from the mainstream of science. I'm not certain that they're even peer-reviewed. Note that he is the single author of most of those publications, which typically indicates a lack of experimental data (experiments are usually performed by junior colleagues such as students and postdocs, but nobody in their right mind would work with this guy). All of his recent articles are simply commentaries and hypotheses, rather than experimental reports. Many take the form of polemic against other aging researchers and/or the biomedical establishment. Anyone with an academic position such as De Grey can publish this sort of thing and call it science, but I'm not aware of a single meaningful theoretical or experimental contribution to aging research made by De Grey. In our laboratory, he is a laughing stock, a byword for "crazy nutjob on an academic soapbox."
De Grey's ideas are so bizarre that their patent absurdity is evident to anyone with even a basic background in molecular biology. Read his papers and see for yourself.
I'm a postdoctoral researcher at a major US medical research center (i.e., not at the Banzai Institute for Biomedical Engineering and Strategic Information). Because I do aging research for a living, I'm familiar with Aubrey De Grey's so-called research. I can assure you that he is to legitimate, experimentally-based aging research what Rael is to cloning: an opportunistic, publicity-seeking fraud. Lots of hot air, zero experiments to back up his outrageous claims.
Actually, ubiquitination and targeted protein degradation are absolutely critical in making sure that the cell cycle proceeds as it should. Ubiquitination is one of the major "brakes" that halts the uncontrolled proliferation of cells, i.e. cancer.
In fact, pretty much every process in the cell in some way relates to cancer, since so many things have to go out of whack for tumors to develop. So it's a bit of weak sauce for the Nobel Committee to always point out the relevance of This Year's Winner's Work to cancer. At least Buck and Axel (the Smell People) are unabashedly non-clinical.
Over the years, there have been many studies that used a variety of experimental and epidemiological techniques to examine the effect of EMFs on health. The short answer is... there aren't any. The following recent review article summarizes the state of the field: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstrac t/89010981/START.
Unfortunately, zealots of the Mendocino variety have made themselves deaf to science... they rarely subscribe to the premises underlying the scientific method of hypothesis and experimentation. No amount of negative data will convince these people that their "feelings" aren't "real."
A testament to the power of highly vocal cranks. For all of our belly-aching about online rights, DMCA, etc., we have much to learn from local wackos about how to effect political change. Today Mendecino, tomorrow the world!