March 13th, 2026
Startup biotech companies have started to use the publication of preprint scientific papers as a way to enhance their standing with investors; putting out a preprint is considerably faster than formal publication, and requires no review process. Many startups undertake programs of research and development that are novel enough to have little in the way of a foundation of prior scientific literature, and thus this is one area of scientific publication in which more weight than usual should be given to the peer review process. In particular, one should be skeptical regarding claims of very large extension of life span in animal models in preprint papers.
Yes, someone will turn up at some point with a surprising, novel approach to rejuvenation that is impressive in comparison to the past scope of slowed aging and extended life in mice, and perhaps that program will be wrapped in a biotech company, and perhaps they will want the benefits of publishing as soon as possible rather than waiting on review. That future seems inevitable, given the pace of progress in aging research and the trend towards opening and democratizing the peer review process. Nonetheless, extraordinary claims still require extraordinary evidence. The history of claimed extension of life span in mice is littered with failed replication, and particularly so for studies that used small numbers of mice and claimed a large extension of life.
