[recycled post - first appeared here]
That sound you just heard was millions of dollars of future vitamin revenues being flushed down the toilet. Well, if people bother to read the science news, that is.
Antioxidants Are Unlikely To Prevent Aging, Study Suggests
You mean I can’t just buy some friendly sounding pills at my local health food store or supermarket and effectively treat what ails me and even cheat death? A little background:
In 1956, Denham Harman proposed the theory that aging is caused by an accumulation of molecular damage caused by “oxidative stress”, the action of reactive forms of oxygen, such as superoxide, on cells. This theory has dominated the field of aging research for over fifty years. But now, a study published online today in the journal Genes & Development suggests that this theory is probably incorrect and that superoxide is not a major cause of aging.
In the developmental psychology text I use they still mention this theory. I wonder if it will be erased from future editions.
Here is my favorite passage from the article:
“The fact is that we don’t understand much about the fundamental mechanisms of aging,” says Dr David Gems from UCL. “The free radical theory of aging has filled a knowledge vacuum for over fifty years now, but it just doesn’t stand up to the evidence.”
If nature abhors a vacuum, the human mind seems downright repulsed by one. And thus we rush to fill gaps in our knowledge with supernatural mechanisms and neat and tidy yet half-baked theories.
Patience. The scientific attitude is one of patience.
Leave a Reply