Talk:Aubrey de Grey/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
2005 Criticism and More Recent Positive Comments
The article is misleading because there is extensive coverage of the 2005 criticisms but no follow-up on more recent positive comments. Brian K. Kennedy was a co-author of an MIT Technology Review submission criticizing SENS, but in a 2015 interview he was supportive of Aubrey's work and stated there was "convergence" [1]. S. Jay Olshansky was a co-author of the EMBO Reports criticism, but in a 2021 interview he was supportive of Aubrey's research [2][3][4].
For the article to not be misleading, it should contain more up-to-date information. It is relevant and important that two authors from the 2005 criticisms have publicly made positive comments on Aubrey's research. I would invite a more experienced editor to make suitable changes to the article. Would something like the following be OK? Brian K. Kennedy and S. Jay Olshansky have made more positive comments about De Grey's research since their 2005 criticisms. (followed by references I've included) If not, please suggest what would be a suitable addition.
Apologies for any newcomer mistakes! 65.50.153.6 (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
The source for each person is a publicly available, recorded interview on aging research. Kennedy stated in a 2015 interview with De Grey, "I think that at least superficially there was a significant difference in what we were saying ten years ago - and in reality there was some difference too - but there has been a lot of convergence on both sides so that I doubt that our messages are that much different now."[1] In 2021 in an interview with De Grey, S. Jay Olshanksy stated "There's a lot of exciting work that's going on right now including work that's going on in Aubrey's lab and some of the folks that he's been involved with."[2]
These interviews provide relevant, important, and up-to-date information. The article is incomplete and misleading if it only references older 2005 content and doesn't reference these more up-to-date statements. They are particularly relevant since Kennedy and Olshanksy were authors (among others) in the older 2005 MIT Technology Review and EMBO Reports, respectively.
How can we adequately include this more up-to-date information from Kennedy and/or Olshansky so that the article is no longer misleading by omission? 65.50.153.6 (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Alexbrn, how are the statements from Kennedy and Olshansky in the interviews unreliable? They are interviews featuring Kennedy and Olshansky alongside De Grey as guests. Kennedy and Olshanksy were authors (among others) in the 2005 criticisms. Mendelspod (interviewing Kennedy) has interviewed scientists for years in its podcasts, and the Healthspan Show shows S. Jay Olshansky speaking in the interview video. Can you explain how Kennedy's or Oshansky's comments in the interviews are unreliable? 65.50.153.6 (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I fully agree, but do not have much experience with Wikipedia yet. Could someone add these positive comments? I regard that as important too. Aquarius3500 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)