> This seems like a tempest in a teacup, and a distraction from things that actually matter. The point of this article is not the aging debate. (And BTW, I don

> This seems like a tempest in a teacup, and a distraction from things that actually matter. The point of this article is not the aging debate. (And BTW, I don't think aging is as well understood as you seem to make out, but that is another discussion.) The point of this article is that a paper got published in one of the two most reputed science journals there are, and it was bogus. Nature and Science are the two most trusted sources of scientific news there are - if we can't trust them, whom can we trust? I hope that this paper was just a one-time screw-up, because if not, we have a major problem on our hands as scientists. (As if we didn't have enough of those already...)