Talk:Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
June 28, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Toolbox

Is this a subtopic of regenerative medicine?[edit]

I suggested adding material about this topic to regenerative medicine, you might be interested in discussing it here. Paradoctor (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

reverted my own edit after email discussion with AdG[edit]

I have been notified that I should not remove text that I added and my change was reverted. My reading of the listed primary literature had led me to understand that the position of Aubrey deGrey had been softened based on the cited evidence, and after receiving an email stating that the paragraph was incorrect, and that I had read the wrong conclusion into the article, and was asked directly by Aubrey deGrey to remove the text which had misattributed his position, which (apparently) has not changed or softened. I don't know why this was reverted to readd text that I think might be incorrect, particularly since I added it in the first place. I don't know what rule of Wikipedia I am not following, as stated on my talk page- making bold edits and removing potentially incorrect or misleading information are the rules I am attempting to follow. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Since no one owns any article, it does not matter who added the information. Here is what you removed - it looks like a well-sourced paragraph to me and Wikipedia is typically not improved by the removal of good cited material. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
I added the info based upon my reading of the sourced material, which on second review and additional discussion seems to present an inaccurate view of the situation. I had originally added this summary of the primary literature, and it was unchanged since I had added it. If I summarize primary literature and then decide later the summary is inaccurate, why shouldn't I remove it? I don't claim ownership of the words, but I do take accountability for what I add. If you would like to review the referenced material and provide your own summary of it, please do so. I don't understand why you oppose, in this case, what is effectively me reverting myself, attempting to remove what is potentially a poorly sourced statement. MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The burden of proof is on me, as the person who added the original material. WP:BURDEN MatthewEHarbowy (talk) 19:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Great explanation. I just brought this up because it always looks strange to me when I see someone remove a lot of sourced content without making a note on the talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RepleniSENS in turtles[edit]

Turtles can live to be about 100 or more. That is because they do not experience cell loss and atrophy. Their organs do not break down as they age.

Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Then why do they die? —Tamfang (talk) 03:09, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It is partially our fault. Human activity has been causing trouble for them. -Anonymous173.57.44.147 (talk) 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Colin Blakemore criticised SENS extensively?[edit]

I have seen this debate and Colin Blakemore did not mention any of the SENS approaches in great detail or even dispute the scientific merit of the approaches with specific examples. Instead he refuted them outright with the rationale that SENS was an attempt at, "immortality", and attempts at immortality in the past had always failed. He spent a good portion of his talk referencing approaches specific to longevity such as calorie restriction or drugs that attempt to induce this effect in humans. SENS however does not work on any of these therapies so this can not be a criticism of SENS. He also refused to consider, even as a hypothetical, that a mouse could have it's lifespan extended indefinitely and then went on further to imply it was a similar question to, "How many angels could fit on a pinhead?". I believe for Colin Blakemore to conduct, "extensive criticism", he should cite specific examples of the SENS approach and say why they are hypothetically not feasible.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:46, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Dr. Kverndokk's comment on this article[edit]

Dr. Kverndokk has reviewed this Wikipedia page, and provided us with the following comments to improve its quality:


As an economist, this subject was new to me, and I find the text a little bit hard to follow as it contains a lot of medical expressions.

There must be something wrong with the maths in the following text copied from "Social and economic implications":

"...the number of Americans stricken with AD will rise from 4 million today to as many as 16 million by midcentury. This means that more people in the United States will have AD by 2050 than the entire current population of the Netherlands. Globally, AD prevalence is expected to rise to 45 million by 2050, with three of every four patients with AD living in a developing nation."


We hope Wikipedians on this talk page can take advantage of these comments and improve the quality of the article accordingly.

We believe Dr. Kverndokk has expertise on the topic of this article, since he has published relevant scholarly research:


  • Reference : Gjerde, Jon & Grepperud, Sverre & Kverndokk, Snorre, 2009. "On adaptation, life-extension possibilities and the demand for health," HERO On line Working Paper Series 2001:7, Oslo University, Health Economics Research Programme.

ExpertIdeasBot (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)