Charles Brenner, longevity skeptic

Who we're talking about: Charles Brenner, a biochemist at City of Hope National Medical Center. Brenner has been vocally critical of much of the field of longevity, particularly of Harvard professor David Sinclair, who is the pre-eminent star among longevity researchers.

And the news is: Brenner was just profiled in an article on Nautilus. The article gives context and possible explanations for Brenner's skeptical position on longevity.

Brenner himself is a respected longevity researcher. Twenty years ago, he discovered that a type of vitamin B3, nicotinamide riboside or NR, is a precursor to nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide, or NAD+. NAD is an enzyme present in all our cells, and the decline of NAD+ levels has been tied to aging and aging-related diseases.

So what's the beef? Brenner says he believes in good aging, but he feels the field is rife with hype and snake oil claims about rejuvenation. He frequently points to Sinclair as an example, specifically Sinclair's claims that aging can be reversed by activating sirtuins, proteins found in all living cells.

And then there’s the money. Brenner now serves as chief scientific advisor of a bioscience company called ChromaDex, which sells NR supplements to increase NAD+ levels. This puts him at odds with Sinclair, who has promoted NMN, a different supplement that boosts NAD+.

Why you might care: In theory, it's always good to keep an open mind. Brenner certainly offers a different perspective on the field of longevity. The fact that he is clearly smart and accomplished, and has expert knowledge, gives him authority when he talks about the science.

At the same time, Brenner seems to relish being a crank and predicting that aging is natural and therefore irreversible. The following tweet is representative:

I'm not sure whether that's just a position that Brenner takes publicly to get attention, or if this is genuinely what he thinks. In either case, I find it a bullheaded argument.

It might be good to keep an open mind and listen to different voices, but I've learned to tune out Dr. Brenner's provocative tweets. His position is better presented in the Nautilus article. If you're interested in longevity research, and in the very human nature of scientific work, the article is worth a read. Take a look at it here.