Ten years ago, we thought aging was probably the result of a slow decay, a sort of rusting. But Professor Kenyon has shown that it’s … controlled by genes.
Weren’t those researching age saying the exact same thing only reversed, ten years ago? (ie, that ten years previously they thought aging was genetically determined, but they’ve now show that it’s just a slow decay).
I’m having a bit of a “would you make up your minds” reaction to this.
I could be completely wrong, but
Weren’t those researching age saying the exact same thing only reversed, ten years ago? (ie, that ten years previously they thought aging was genetically determined, but they’ve now show that it’s just a slow decay).
I’m having a bit of a “would you make up your minds” reaction to this.
I thought the current version was “Decay counterbalanced by repairs, genes control how active repairs are”.