I know that's not how science is supposed to work necessarily, but that doesn't really account for laziness or ineptitude.
I'm not sure that 'laziness' or 'ineptitude' are really the correct words, though.
It isn't that researchers who used mice from JAX labs were lazy, or inept.
Nor, really, that JAX labs have been - if the argument is to be made that they should alter their breeding protocols, then the question comes as to how they should go about this.
One big reason why they are bred in this way is to encourage reproducibility between (and within) groups - and to say that this is a
huge issue, that is currently affecting (and has been for a long time previously) science, is a massive understatement.
The fact that the telomere lengths have apparently been boosted by this process is an unfortunate consequence of this.
It isn't like scientists aren't talking about this kinda stuff, however - nor about differences in telomere lengths between different mouse strains - nor between 'wild' and JAX mice
specifically (
here's a short paper from 2000 that touches on this kinda thing [there are many, many others, but this one is free so you can skim if you want]).
Now, I haven't listened to the particular podcast that he is referring to (I will try to find time today). It's possible that he's bringing up something new, rather than trying to be overly conspiratorial, but I'm not sure
how he'd rather laboratory animals were bred.
If his issues are with common rodent models, in particular, then he really is not alone in his criticisms (he is certainly not the sole hero standing up to the oppressive regime, or whatever [yeah, he didn't say this - but the way he was talking made me think that he wished people saw him in this way]) - though, I'm not sure that the hill he decides to plant his flag on [with that particular laboratory strain] is their biggest issue.
Ok, listened to some of the interview with his brother - and that [little bit] was more than enough for me.
That guy [Eric Weinstein] seems to take a super reductionist view on the relationship between aging and cancer. He has latched onto one idea (that of the relationship between telomeric length and apoptosis), from a paper published around 18 years ago [I assume he is discussing this - he talks about his brother's thesis (from 2009)], and run with it - as if there is a huge conspiracy with scientists actively ignoring the research, as it causes them issues - it's incredibly alarmist.
Now that isn't to say that there isn't something to that paper, or the ideas presented within it (the links between telomere length and cancer are pretty well established), it's just they aren't the be-all and end-all - I really worry that the man's motives in this interview with Joe Rogan.