4 ms·

> The report details six studies on rats and mice in which the animals developed signs of cancer in the stomach or liver after their diet was changed to include

by ju-st 10y ago

> The report details six studies on rats and mice in which the animals developed signs of cancer in the stomach or liver after their diet was changed to include more capsaicin http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34411492 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34411492 (2015)

rectangletangle 10y ago
This probably has more to do with mice being an imperfect model organism for humans. A healthy diet for a mouse is different than a healthy diet for a human. Humans have a particularly robust digestive system, compared to other animals; for instance, we can eat lemons. We could be regarded as highly omnivorous, and extreme generalists. This makes it difficult to model human dietary nature, because many animals can't handle a diet as varied as ours. As far as mammals go, humans might actually be the most tolerant of a varied diet. This probably stems back to our early days, where scavenging was common. It's pretty apparent that at some point humans underwent intense selective pressure for dietary tolerance. I can't think of another mammal that can regularly eat things as diverse as corn, lemons, and beef, and not die. This makes it really difficult to find a good organism for modeling human dietary behavior. Even our close relatives, like Chimpanzees, would have issues when fed a normal human diet.
Balgair 10y ago
Ok, so I do work alongside people that do these food studies (coffee, wine, chocolate, etc). I myself do not do these studies, but I do know a few people that do. None of the scientists are trying to deceive the public. Nor are they trying very hard to get out a publication. Peer review for these, and for most paper, really works. The issue here is the press. These little studies show a very narrow and tightly controlled (with rare exception) effect, and if you read these papers, the effect is usually very small or only for certain age ranges of mice. However, when the press release comes out, these caveats are totally ignored or buried at the end of the press article that the univ releases. This is usually accompanied by very pretty pictures of the PI that never touched the bench in a lab coat that has the name of a lab tech stitched onto it. That then gets spun around to a local news outlet that may or may not tell you about the limits of the study. If you are 'lucky' then you have a major news outlet pick it up and just copy/paste most of it and leave even more out. Then the blogs get a hand on it and somehow your buddies that made the original study are being accused of being lizard people working for the moon god Tsath-Satha. All along the way it gets distorted and the general public is rightfully confused. Honestly, the blame lies with the researchers. We are where the 'buck stops'. That we allow the press to say these things and distort the work so much harms us and makes us less trustworthy the public that we are working to help. How to stop this is something that we could use help with.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  I bookmarked this a while back. I think it sums up the situation pretty well: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
- battlebot 10y ago
  I pretty much just ignore all of these reports and articles because of everything you just said. And I hate to change the subject, but studies done in every other subject are the exact same way. I'm in no way impugning the research and hard work of people out there who are doing an honest and forthright job and are trying to serve humanity. It's just that I've been to a lot of these same rodeos and well, I've seen some astounding breaches of ethics. Maybe someone down the line isn't trying to deceive the public, but the public is in fact being deceived, is it not? And now we have the bigger problem of we can't trust major news outlets and sources of information. So here we are.

by ju-st 10y ago

rectangletangle 10y ago

This probably has more to do with mice being an imperfect model organism for humans. A healthy diet for a mouse is different than a healthy diet for a human. Humans have a particularly robust digestive system, compared to other animals; for instance, we can eat lemons. We could be regarded as highly omnivorous, and extreme generalists. This makes it difficult to model human dietary nature, because many animals can't handle a diet as varied as ours. As far as mammals go, humans might actually be the most tolerant of a varied diet. This probably stems back to our early days, where scavenging was common. It's pretty apparent that at some point humans underwent intense selective pressure for dietary tolerance. I can't think of another mammal that can regularly eat things as diverse as corn, lemons, and beef, and not die. This makes it really difficult to find a good organism for modeling human dietary behavior. Even our close relatives, like Chimpanzees, would have issues when fed a normal human diet.

Balgair 10y ago

Ok, so I do work alongside people that do these food studies (coffee, wine, chocolate, etc). I myself do not do these studies, but I do know a few people that do. None of the scientists are trying to deceive the public. Nor are they trying very hard to get out a publication. Peer review for these, and for most paper, really works. The issue here is the press. These little studies show a very narrow and tightly controlled (with rare exception) effect, and if you read these papers, the effect is usually very small or only for certain age ranges of mice. However, when the press release comes out, these caveats are totally ignored or buried at the end of the press article that the univ releases. This is usually accompanied by very pretty pictures of the PI that never touched the bench in a lab coat that has the name of a lab tech stitched onto it. That then gets spun around to a local news outlet that may or may not tell you about the limits of the study. If you are 'lucky' then you have a major news outlet pick it up and just copy/paste most of it and leave even more out. Then the blogs get a hand on it and somehow your buddies that made the original study are being accused of being lizard people working for the moon god Tsath-Satha. All along the way it gets distorted and the general public is rightfully confused. Honestly, the blame lies with the researchers. We are where the 'buck stops'. That we allow the press to say these things and distort the work so much harms us and makes us less trustworthy the public that we are working to help. How to stop this is something that we could use help with.

jlarocco 10y ago
I bookmarked this a while back. I think it sums up the situation pretty well: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive/phd051809s.gif
battlebot 10y ago
I pretty much just ignore all of these reports and articles because of everything you just said. And I hate to change the subject, but studies done in every other subject are the exact same way. I'm in no way impugning the research and hard work of people out there who are doing an honest and forthright job and are trying to serve humanity. It's just that I've been to a lot of these same rodeos and well, I've seen some astounding breaches of ethics. Maybe someone down the line isn't trying to deceive the public, but the public is in fact being deceived, is it not? And now we have the bigger problem of we can't trust major news outlets and sources of information. So here we are.