Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered

and a cure for cancer is next? is this some kind of korean insidejoke that i am not getting, or might this be true?



times.hankooki.com...

I hope this is true. Unfortunately, I have been very skeptical of Korean research ever since the famed falsified stem cell research incident last year. The push to be first in research regardless of standards seems top be endemic in their science programs.

Mariella

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I hope this is true. Unfortunately, I have been very skeptical of Korean research ever since the famed falsified stem cell research incident last year. The push to be first in research regardless of standards seems top be endemic in their science programs.

Mariella

Remember, the guy who faked those Stem Cell results went from National Hero to National Disgrace in a fairly short period of time. Something like this wouldn't be too hard to verify and it would be extremely stupid of them to fabricate something like this directly on the heels of that Stem Cell fiasco.

I agree with you BS4LDOC..

It,s such a shame that genuine research is overshadowed by numbskulls who present their pseudo-evidence without scientific proof and just end up harming some of the unsponsoredresearch projects actually helping us defeat some of these horrible afflictions..

Without a doubt they will prevail though!!!!

I believe that mans desire to do good willl outwaythecorrupt few who learn medicine just to profit from misery

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by bsl4doc
I hope this is true. Unfortunately, I have been very skeptical of Korean research ever since the famed falsified stem cell research incident last year. The push to be first in research regardless of standards seems top be endemic in their science programs.

Mariella

Remember, the guy who faked those Stem Cell results went from National Hero to National Disgrace in a fairly short period of time. Something like this wouldn't be too hard to verify and it would be extremely stupid of them to fabricate something like this directly on the heels of that Stem Cell fiasco.

It's more complicated than that. The man who forged the stem cell results technically didn't lie, he stretched the truth. He claimed to have 11 lines, when in actuality he had 1 finished and 10 in development. The reason he published before they were finished was because the government, who provided a substantial portion of his funding, threatened to revoke the cash if he didn't provide some sort of results soon. How do we know this isn't more of the same?

You also have to take into account that TWO of the fake studies were published in a prominent journal, I believe it was Science if I'm not mistaken. Could be, though.

Mariella

[edit on 6/15/2006 by bsl4doc]

Hey BSL.. How did your exams go???

Well i hope.. We need more openminded Docs out there especially in haemotology

You also have to take into account that TWO of the fake studies were published in a prominent journal, I believe it was Science if I'm not mistaken. Could be, though.

Thanks for that. My basic point is that you can go and say just about the same exact thing about any Country or University who's hosted a corrupt Scientist. Does publishing a paper with fabricated data hit at Science's credibility? Not in my mind, because approximately 1 in 10 papers are the equivalent to Junk Science. Either they are Fraud Junk Science or they are Failed Science which just turned about to be Junk after being proven incorrect.

How do we know this isn't more of the same?

How do we know other major papers from other countries aren't more of the same either? Such a practice is, unfortunately wide spread when it comes to Government Research Grants. That money always comes with strings attached. The only true litmus test we can do is peer review replication, which is kind of the point of publishing isn't it?

Originally posted by sardion2000

You also have to take into account that TWO of the fake studies were published in a prominent journal, I believe it was Science if I'm not mistaken. Could be, though.

Thanks for that.

My basic point is that you can go and say just about the same exact thing about any Country or University who's hosted a corrupt Scientist. Does publishing a paper with fabricated data hit at Science's credibility? Not in my mind, because approximately 1 in 10 papers are the equivalent to Junk Science. Either they are Fraud Junk Science or they are Failed Science which just turned about to be Junk after being proven incorrect.

How do we know this isn't more of the same?

How do we know other major papers from other countries aren't more of the same either? Such a practice is, unfortunately wide spread when it comes to Government Research Grants. That money always comes with strings attached. The only true litmus test we can do is peer review replication, which is kind of the point of publishing isn't it?

I find your ideas puzzling, and a bit frightening, Sardion. You assest that there are many fraudulent papers out there, which is simply not the case. MOST papers are peer reviewed, and often replicated. These Korean papers, however, were sent on a rush dispatch method, which is rare. They were allowed without review, however, because of what the success of the material implied and the fact that there were other teams on the tail of this team. No, I don't think it says anything at all about Science. Any journal would have probably done the same thing. However, to cast doubt on even 1 in 10 of all studies is a bit of an overexaggeration. I would only extend this sentiment to papers coming from the same social and economic setting, i.e. governmentally funded by Korea, a nation who publicly states they are gunning for Japan in the tech and science arena.

Mariella

Im not into quoteing and all that jazz but this struck me ... Its a QUOTE....

I find your ideas puzzling, and a bit frightening, Sardion. You assest that there are many fraudulent papers out there, which is simply not the case. MOST papers are peer reviewed, and often replicated. These Korean papers, however, were sent on a rush dispatch method, which is rare. They were allowed without review, however, because of what the success of the material implied and the fact that there were other teams on the tail of this team. No, I don't think it says anything at all about Science. Any journal would have probably done the same thing. However, to cast doubt on even 1 in 10 of all studies is a bit of an overexaggeration. I would only extend this sentiment to papers coming from the same social and economic setting, i.e. governmentally funded by Korea, a nation who publicly states they are gunning for Japan in the tech and science arena.


Mariella....


You got my vote...Well done... Well said... Well thought out ...



Drow....

``Obviously, it is an innovative finding. But we need to see whether or not CGK733 could really rejuvenate cells inside human bodies without generating side effects,’’

I find this very far from the truth about how long it could be in the market as a product. Obviously the findings are just that findings.

The test has been done only on cultured cells under strict conditions outside the human body.

This involve DNA tampering and with that is many other side effect to consider.

I doubt we will see something in the market in ten years.

too good to be truth.

I cheked it out; turns out that it's a letter (and a one-paragraph one at that) announcing that they've found a molecule that resets the senescence clock.
www.nature.com...

Thing is, I see no mouse studies or other studies mentioned and there's no cautionary note about "it works in mice but we're not sure about humans", etc.

I'm also a tad reserved because of the way they say it was found:

This compound was identified by a high-throughput phenotypic screen with automated imaging. Employing a magnetic nanoprobe technology, magnetism-based interaction capture (MAGIC)3,

This is technology they developed and have promoted, and that always gives me puase. I think we'll have to wait and see, but the announcement does raise some questions for me.