5 ms·
The article refers chiefly to repeating mouse or rat experiments. The obstacle there isn't what level of training researcher has (as long as it's sufficient),
by pcrh 10y ago
The article refers chiefly to repeating mouse or rat experiments.
The obstacle there isn't what level of training researcher has (as long as it's sufficient), but who is going to pay for it.
At the scale proposed (a 6-fold greater number of mice per experiment than is usual) the cost of testing only the core hypothesis is easily over $100K. In addition there is the time involved, which can be from months to years, depending on the experiment.
- mattkrause 10y agoScaling up non-human primate experiment like this could make them span a decade, assuming the infrastructure and staff aren't also increased sixfold.
- pcrh 10y agoI don't think they're proposing to scale up to that level, which would indeed result in excessive costs. Even scaling-up mice experiments would be quite costly, and beyond the size of most research grants. There would have to be new funding mechanisms in place for work like this. The article proposes that this would be more economical in the long run, and so the NIH et al. should be in its favor. Perhaps they will create a new facility for just such work? Though that seems unlikely in the current funding climate.
- makomk 10y agoAlso, the limited supply of researchers and facilities wiling to put up with death threats, breakins, firebombings, being beaten up on the street by groups of masked assailants...