The Washington Post article titled “Can reprogramming our genes make us young
again?” by Gretchen Reynolds explores the rapidly advancing field of cellular reprogramming
and its potential to reverse aging. The article focuses on epigenetic reprogramming and how
Yamanaka factors (four genes capable of resetting cells to a more youthful state) may hold the
key to extending lifespan and restoring tissue function.
In 2016, scientists at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies conducted an experiment
using mice bred with progeria, a genetic disorder that causes rapid aging. While the average
mouse typically lives for about two years, these mice aged prematurely, turning gray and frail
before dying around seven months of age. To prevent this decline, researchers injected the mice
with a virus carrying the Yamanaka genes, hoping to counteract the effects of progeria. As
Reynolds (2025) reports, “They injected them with a virus carrying four genes that can reshape
DNA and, in effect, make every cell in the rodents’ bodies young again. Scientists could even
control the genes from outside the mice, turning them on and off to manage the safety and
potency of the genetic changes.” The experiment was a success—the lifespan of the progeria-
afflicted mice increased by 30 percent. This pivotal finding demonstrated the potential of cellular
reprogramming to reverse aging at a systemic level and has since inspired the development of
similar technologies by biotech companies.
At the heart of this process is the epigenome, a collection of chemical modifications that
regulates gene activity without changing the underlying DNA sequence. One of the most critical
epigenetic modifications is DNA methylation, in which methyl groups attach to DNA and
influence whether specific genes are turned on or off. As we age, these methylation patterns
often become irregular, silencing genes that are essential for cellular repair and increasing
vulnerability to age-related diseases. Factors such as stress, smoking, and illness can influence
methylation, but aging remains the most significant driver of these changes. Cellular
reprogramming works by erasing or resetting faulty methylation patterns, allowing cells to regain
their youthful functionality. The 2024 ScienceDirect article, “Genetic and epigenetic alterations
in aging and rejuvenation of human,” supports this concept, explaining how partial
reprogramming through transcription factors can rejuvenate tissues like the liver, pancreas, and
skin by restoring youthful methylation profiles.
While these findings are promising, both sources urge caution. The Washington Post
highlights serious side effects seen in some reprogrammed animals, including tumor
development and early mortality (Reynolds, 2025). The ScienceDirect article echoes these
concerns, warning that full-body or long-term applications of epigenetic reprogramming may
carry risks such as tumorigenesis and other unintended consequences (Zhou et al., 2024).
In conclusion, both sources provide strong evidence that cellular reprogramming,
especially through manipulation of the epigenome and DNA methylation, could be a
revolutionary tool in reversing human aging. However, the potential risks must be carefully
addressed through controlled research and ethical oversight before this science can safely extend from lab animals to humans.

Citations

Reynolds, G. (2025, March 6). Inside the scientific quest to reverse human aging. The
Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/2025/03/06/cellular-
reprogramming-longevity-reverse-aging/
Park, K., Jeon, M. C., Lee, D., Kim, J.-I. & Im, S.-W. Genetic and epigenetic alterations in aging
and rejuvenation of human. Molecules and Cells (2024). Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1016847824001626

“Effects of methylphenidate on cognition and behaviour in children with neurofibromatosis type 1: A study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial” is a peer-reviewed primary article. Primary articles are an original research article that is written by researchers who conducted the experimental study. This article is about a neurogenetic condition known as neurofibromatosis type 1, which is a genetic disorder caused by a mutation in the NF1 gene. The NF1 gene is critical for the growth and development of cells. Due to this mutation, tumors form on nerve tissues and can cause a change in skin pigmentation, seizures, learning disabilities (such as ADHD), body abnormalities (eyes, ears, bones), and many other issues. The writer(s) of the primary article decided to experiment with two treatment conditions. Methylphenidate, a stimulant medication that increases dopaminergic and noradrenergic neurotransmission, rescued the behavioural and dopamine abnormalities (​Pride et al., 2018)​ and a placebo. They had 36 participants between the ages of 7-16 years split into two separate groups. One group would receive methylphenidate while the other group received a placebo for 6 weeks. After they would switch treatments, so that group one would be on the placebo, while group two would receive methylphenidate for 6 weeks. “Neurocognitive and behavioural outcomes as well as neuroimaging measures will be completed at baseline and repeated at the end of each treatment condition” ​(Pride et al., 2018)​. This was completely randomized where neither the participants, nor the researcher(s) knew which group had which treatment and a third party was assigned to give the medication to the two groups. They did this so that the trial would be unbiased. The researcher(s) and the participants would not be told until the 12-week trial was over. The primary aim of this clinical trial is to assess the efficacy of methylphenidate for reducing attention deficits, spatial working memory impairments and ADHD symptoms in children with NF1 ​(Pride et al., 2018).​ So far, the article has been reviewed by trustworthy and knowledgeable experts but as of now, the results have not been made known.  

Citation: 

1.Pride, N. A. et al. Effects of methylphenidate on cognition and behaviour in children with neurofibromatosis type 1: A study protocol for a randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. BMJ Open 8, (2018). 

As a biology undergraduate student is essential to understand the difference between a primary article, a review article, and the scientific peer review process. A primary article is written based on the author’s original scientific research. An example of this could be a written lab report. The author conducts an experiment and depending on their observations they then write a lab report. Methods, tables, figures, results, references, and data used during the experiment and research process are often included in primary articles. 

A review article is written based off of primary articles or another research topic. In review articles, the author will search and analyze scientific research articles written by other people. They will then draft an article on the subject including a summary of the source’s paper, an analysis of their findings, a discussion of their personal or others’ opinions on the subject, and a conclusion. Unlike a primary article, a review article does not include data, personal observations, or any original scientific research. 

Lastly, a scientific peer review process is a multistep process that focuses on the credibility and originality of an author’s original scientific research. This process is often required to have research published. The author submits all their research to a journal, where it is then assessed by independent experts who are knowledgeable and trustworthy in the author’s field. The expert assesses all the scientific data, research, results, and anything else included in the article. During review, the experts examine the authenticity, accuracy, and the significance of the research. After the evaluation, the journal decides on publication based on all the feedback they receive from the editor and experts. There are many other smaller steps in between the three I listed here, and the process can take months before a decision is made. 

For as long as I can remember, I have always loved anything and everything that had to do with animals. Looking back, my favorite places I would go to as a child would be zoos and aquariums. Even going to a pet store would bring me so much joy and happiness. As I got older, I realized not only did I want to see the animals, but I also wanted to learn about them as well. I wanted to know their habits, what they ate, where they came from, how they functioned? I would often beg my mom to buy me books on them so I could find the answers to all my questions. As much as I loved all animals, there was one that I always came back to. When my mom bought me my first book on sharks, I became extremely engrossed in it. Before that first book, I never truly comprehended all the varied species of sharks that existed, and I became enthralled. Then in 3^rd grade, my teacher asked the students to go home and think about what they wanted to be when they grew up. Normally, students are asked this question multiple times in their life, but it is not taken as seriously in elementary school as it would be in high school or college.  Even so, I recall going home and discussing it with my mom. As I previously stated, I have always loved animals, so I considered being veterinarian, but for sharks. At the time I did not know the proper term was marine biology until my teacher explained it to me. As the years went by, the career question continuously came up and many of the students’ answers changed, but mine has always stayed the same. It has been almost 17 years since I was first asked that question and now, I am currently a junior at Old Dominion University, majoring in marine biology. 

As a junior in college, it is becoming crucially important to have a plan for my future either academically or professionally. Over the years, I have had multiple different plans that I have gone back and forth on. I am confident that I want to pursue graduate studies eventually, but I am currently debating if I should pursue it immediately after graduating with my bachelor’s degree or if I should pursue a professional career first and then go back for my master’s degree later in life.  I have been at war with myself over this decision for a while now and unfortunately, I still am questioning what to do. Although I am unsure about when to pursue graduate studies, I am confident in what I would like to focus on when it comes to marine biology as a career. Sharks have always been my passion and my heart broke when I first learned how many species are either threatened or endangered due to pollution, overfishing, poaching, and global warming. I had an overwhelming need to help in any way I could. I immediately started researching what I could do to aid the shark population. I came across many non-profit organizations such as NOAA, SARRI, and Sharks Angels. These organizations are doing everything they can to save not only sharks, but all the ocean’s ecosystem. I felt drawn to these organizations and all the astounding work they are doing. It was then I realized that I had the desire to be a part of something bigger and to truly be able to make a difference.  

I often think back to when I first said I wanted to be a marine biologist at eight years old. At the time I was only interested in their behavior and mannerisms, plus I thought it would be cool to swim with them. Now I am twenty-three years old, and I am still obsessed with them, but I now know I want to focus on rehabilitation and conservation. I want to do everything in my power to reintroduce and replenish all the threatened and endangered shark species in our oceans. I want to bring our oceans back to life. That is my life’s true calling. I know I have many steps to take before I get there, but I am determined to do whatever I can!