New Batin's blogpost in Telegram about non-existence of the theory of aging:
Here's the translation:
----------------------------------------
There's an article by Vadim Gladyshev called "Disagreements on the Fundamental Principles of the Biology of Aging."
Its main conclusion is simple: on the most fundamental questions in the biology of aging, scientists have no agreement. What's more, there isn't even a consensus on whether such a consensus is needed at all.
The authors surveyed more than a hundred specialists — professors, postdocs, and other researchers — and asked them just a few basic questions:
1. What is aging?
2. What causes aging?
3. What is rejuvenation?
4. What is the main unresolved question in this field?
5. When does aging begin?
6. Is aging a disease?
7. Does the scientific community need a unified definition of aging?
8. Do you expect a significant increase in average life expectancy in the next 20 years?
On almost every question, opinions diverged.
But here a strange situation arises.
If physics fails to reconcile quantum mechanics and general relativity, that becomes a central scientific problem. Enormous effort goes precisely into finding a theory that can resolve the contradictions.
In the biology of aging, almost the opposite happens. Each group keeps developing its own hypothesis, sees the future breakthrough coming precisely from its own direction, and rarely tries to figure out why different theories arrive at such different conclusions.
You'd think the disagreements themselves should become a separate, in fact a priority, subject of research.
Ideally, leading specialists should meet regularly and discuss not just new results but the main question: why do we still disagree so strongly, and what research could change that?
Maybe the problem is also that we're not asking good enough questions?
Let's try to take a step forward. I'll start:
1. Which experiments are most likely to resolve the existing contradictions betwe
