The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
And the paper was you had found that heat shocking worms... Actually, I think it was just at this early paper was a single heat shocking. You increased the lifespan of the worm by like 15%, and this was totally dependent on the production of something called heat shock proteins or HSPs which people have heard me talk about before.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
And he said, "All right, you've just discovered something that John Maynard Smith published in "Nature" in 1950s." And he pulled this paper, you know, out of his drawer, and sure enough that John Maynard Smith, the evolutionary biologist, had been looking at tradeoffs between reproduction and lifespan and he had stressed, in this case, flies, he stressed the flies with a heat shock and they had lived longer.
And then you published again showing that multiple heat shock treatments could increase the lifespan of the worm like even more robustly.
So I said, "Look at this. This is amazing. You stress the animals and they live longer."