The founder of the epigenetic clock technique was interviewed for MIT Technology Review:
“We need to find ways to keep people healthier longer,” he says. He hopes that refinements to his clock will soon make it precise enough to reflect changes in lifestyle and behavior.”
The journalist attempted to dumb the subject down “for the rest of us” with distortions such as the headline. The varying correlation of epigenetic age to chronological age was somewhat better reported in the story:
“The epigenetic clock is more accurate the younger a person is. It’s especially inaccurate for the very old.”
The journalist inappropriately used luck as a synonym for randomness/stochasticity:
“He estimates that about 40% of the ticking rate is determined by genetic inheritance, and the rest by lifestyle and luck.”
A third example of less-than-straightforward journalism started with:
“Such personalization raises questions about fairness. If your epigenetic clock is ticking faster through no fault of your own..”
Were MIT Technology Review readers unable to comprehend a straightforward story on the epigenetic clock? What was the purpose of slants and distortions in an introductory article?
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612256/want-to-know-when-youre-going-to-die/ “Want to know when you’re going to die?”
