Scientific debate is an opportunity, not a chore: It benefits the establishment, the heretic, and the observer Alike

摘要

IN THE FIRST ISSUE OF REJUVENATION RESEARCH of 2014, we published a guest editorial by Theodore C. Goldsmith that articulated a view of the underlying basis of aging1 that departs radically from my own. As I noted at the time, my wish to give publicity to this view was not born of simple generosity, nor of any sense of duty to be impartial (though I hope that I exhibit both those characteristics!). Rather, it was based on the appreciation that we are in a battle to the death. We are not basic scientists with the goal of understanding nature better, but biomedical technologists: experts focused on saving astronomical numbers of lives by hastening the development of new medicines. If Goldsmith is correct, we may be able to start postponing the ill health of old age, and thereby start saving lives, much sooner than if he is wrong. Therefore, even though my considered assessment is that he is vanishingly unlikely to be right, it would have been irresponsible in the extreme for me to pass up the opportunity to give a platform to his position.