Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Azecap t1_j48q8xx wrote

Reply to comment by artifex0 in Breakthrough milestone in understanding the reversal of aging by duffmanhb

He's definitely not well-respected. He has a following of biohackers, but many researchers consider him a snake oil salesman.

12

[deleted] t1_j4br3q6 wrote

[deleted]

2

Azecap t1_j4caazq wrote

Cell is certainly quite prestigious, but as I'm sure you are aware from your own field, the prestigious journals are more interested in sensational findings than in scientific rigor and reproducibility. Moreover, the peer review will depend on the specific reviewers and there's quite a bit of backclapping going on in this particular field of research.

That said, I cannot speak to this particular study, as I have not yet read it myself.

3

banuk_sickness_eater t1_j4bv2he wrote

Not well respected he's a Professor in the Department of Genetics and co-Director of the Paul F. Glenn Center for Biology of Aging Research at Harvard Medical School. He's literally at the pinnacle of his field. Show me evidence of his derision amoungst his fellow researchers.

2

Azecap t1_j4cdm78 wrote

Being a professor certainly seems respectable from the outside, but the universities are full of them nonetheless, and among peers the title is worth less.

He has built a career on sensational (irreproducible) findings, overinterpretation and exaggeration.

Here's your link for proof. I know of few researchers who have been called out in such a fashion.

4

banuk_sickness_eater t1_j4cijan wrote

Sure there are a lot of adjuncts at colleges but there aren't many co-chairs of their department at Harvard.

I'm not trying to simply appeal to authority here, but that is a very lofty title at very respected institution. One article from Charles Brenner, a highly respected researcher in his own regard at an equally well regarded research institute- while highly troubling- doesn't totally convince me that Sinclair has lost the faith of a majority, or even a large portion, of his colleagues.

I guess my question is if he was such a quack, how does he keep his job and how does he keep getting published in highly prestigious journals such as Cell?

My guess would be there are opaque internal politics involved that those not behind the scenes aren't privy. Which would make this seem more like a collegial spat or personal vendetta settling than wholly honest critical peer review. But I'm very open to being wrong.

I'm sorry to pester, but I'm largely unfamiliar with the intricacies of this field. May you, or anyone who works in the field, please provide some more sources of legitimate criticism for Sinclair from his peers?

2

Azecap t1_j4cktkl wrote

Even highly acclaimed research institutions and journals unfortunately care mainly about money and exposure. Sinclair undoubtedly creates research papers of high "impact" - in the sense that they are sensational and oft-cited. It's just that no one else can reproduce his findings and that the actual clinical impact is unimpressive. Moreover, while appearing reasonable at a glance, many of his statements fail under scrutiny - the text I linked by Brenner really does quite a good job in this regard.

There is (unfortunately) not a culture of actively trying to disprove the research of others in today's scientific research, even though it is in principle one of the pillars of science. The fact that Sinclair's claims are so over the top that they merit a response like this truly is special.

2

Ortus14 t1_j4ano22 wrote

Yah, I was excited until I read that the scammer known as David Sinclair was behind it. That's unfortunate.

1