Can you make a 10-year malt whisky in weeks? The chemistry says yes

Here's two things that science can't deliver for us:

1. The x-factor. Contrary to their claims, chemists and food scientists don't have it figured out. They are only 99% of the way there. It's true that people won't be able to tell the difference, but it is different. This is similar to the science claims that we can make a drink that delivers all our nutritional needs but a pure Soylent diet leaves many people with headaches or cravings. Sometimes the tiny 1% x-factor ends up punching above its weight.

2. Authenticity. Honestly, I like the taste of cheap Japanese blended "scotch" more than any $500 bottle of 23 year old from the highlands. However, that Japanese blend isn't an authentic scotch. I still buy expensive scotch. I want to be able to tell people that my whisky sat in a barrel for decades, using water from a specific river and distilled according to an archaic set of rules. Lab aged whisky, no matter how good, will just be plain whisky and not part of a historic identity. This is similar to people not wanting to buy a lab grown diamond, even though the lab grown diamond is just as pretty and isn't responsible for child soldiers dying in Africa.

I'm still skeptical about such claims. I've also seen "scientific" claims that chemically smoked meat/fish is identical to naturally smoked one. Hell no, I've done plenty of blind tests to disprove that -- while differences are somewhat minor, but certainly not hard to tell apart and important enough (at least for me) to pay extra.