Same story (from different site) discussed nine days ago:<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4112241" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4112241</a><p>I see that every news story and blog post from the past two weeks on this issue appears mostly to be based on the study team's press release, with perhaps a glance at the underlying paper in PNAS.<p><a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/05/1202092109.abstract" rel="nofollow">http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/06/05/1202092109.abst...</a><p>The line "*This Direct Submission article had a prearranged editor" intrigues me, as it suggests that this article didn't go through a normal process of peer review. I'm also wondering how much this has been verified in an animal model (a quick Google Scholar search suggests that the animal analog is far from being an established conclusion in science). Check LISP hacker and Google director of research Peter Norvig's online article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"<p><a href="http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html" rel="nofollow">http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html</a><p>for some reasons to be cautious about this finding until it is replicated by other researchers and analyzed by other study teams.