I totally agree. We don't even know what aging really is. Shorter telomeres? Insulin insensitivity? We can't even regrow hair at this point. We definitely know some (I repeat, some) of the underlying causes of male pattern balding, but we can't overcome it entirely.

Great summary. Technical language is used because, well, to understand and reproduce an experiment, one has to be absolutely precise in his/her descriptions and speak "technically". Word processors are pretty good at catching misspellings and many common grammatical issues, so folks should at least take the time to run this at least at the end.

For me, this is in part comes down to whether scientists are public figures. Does accepting public funds require that our faces be associated with the research in a very public way? I struggle with this a bit, particularly when, as just one example, animal research is involved. You would not believe (well, maybe you would if you have ever read Youtube comments sections before) the abuse that comes with publishing a story with any general/mainstream media interest and that involves research animals in any capacity. I agree that a publication's authors may well be the best ones to explain the relevance and impact of a study. I agree that scientists have an obligation to make good use of the resources given to them. But, I wonder if everyone should be subjected to the type of scrutiny that might come with this well-meaning endeavor. Remember the physicist that wore that shirt during the interviews about the comet landing?

The OP comments that he/she is unable to commit times tables to memory. This alone indicates a real, measurable learning disability in at least one domain. He/she should get formally tested and have a plan to address the areas of weakness directly.

So, harassing low paid workers at the bottom of the food chain who are performing their jobs in good faith, slowing and inconveniencing all the other travelers with energetic 3-year-old kids and crotchety 85-year-old grandparents who all have to pee, and further diluting an already strained and minimally beneficial system to "buck authority" just doesn't seem to be the best way to address this. Sure, this reporter got to write a really "witty" article. But, this kind of episode just seems really self-serving and inward focused. You want to gum up the system? Spend some time organizing and do it in a concerted, organized fashion where it could actually make a change. Haphazardly slowing things up just ticks people off and makes many more complacent about "let's just get on with it so I can get on my vacation/get home/get to my meeting." Separate issue: Since when does having served in any military capacity provide carte blanche for any behavior and imbue one with near mystical wisdom about life?