6 ms·

Except for maybe the last paragraph, this is not new information to basically anyone performing studies. The problem is we don't have any ethically and scientif

by dtech 8y ago

Except for maybe the last paragraph, this is not new information to basically anyone performing studies. The problem is we don't have any ethically and scientifically better alternatives.

bayesian_horse 8y ago
We are getting there. In-vitro methods, often involving cell cultures, are gaining traction. In-silico, also. Robotic automation and synthetic biology help with that a lot. Machine learning can help make sense of more limited data, for example predicting toxicity and other parameters for drugs so that you can better choose what to forward to Human trials.
- klmr 8y ago
  In vitro studies have been done for ages, but are often a worse model than closely related organisms. For instance, there are various human cancer cell lines and while these are routinely used to study various aspects of biology (cancer being just one of them), they are generally a poor model for drug trials. The current research trend goes towards developing organoids — cell cultures with a distinct 3D organisation and biological makeup that mimics actual organs — that more closely resemble actual human tissues. It’s still early days though.
  - bayesian_horse 8y ago
    Organoids do count as in vitro. And as I said, synthetic biology, automation and machine learning help in improving these methods. Nothing can replace certain studies in Humans completely. We can only hope to make those more effective by better choice of candidate drugs.
    - klmr 8y ago
      Absolutely. My phrasing wasn’t clear, I was contrasting organoids with the cell cultures mentioned in your reply, not with in vitro studies in general.
      - Amygaz 8y ago
        Organoids, organ-on-chip, 3D cell cultures, have all shown to be equivalent to each other, and better than standard 2D cell culture. Ultimately they are not very complex, definitely more than a monoculture, but no where near an organism that evolved from a single cell. They haven’t shown to be a good proxy for a whole organism. On term of disease model, they are typically artificial in the sense that genetically engineer the cell with a specific mutation that may or may not represent the disease or the population. And if an experiment doesn’t work the way you want, you are a new set and sometimes it works the way you want. The only two things they have over mice is that they can be from human origin, and sometimes that human origin might be in a disease state that you want to study, which might be the only way to generate a model for complex disease...
        bayesian_horse 8y ago
        In-vitro and In-silico modelling might be of great use is for known problems that come up for candidate drugs in the early clinical phase: Interaction with receptors (blood/brain barrier, QT prolongation etc) or liver proteins or the like. Of course, we are talking about the fruits on the drug tree which are potentially reachable by singular small molecule drugs.
rajadigopula 8y ago
There is an alternate. To wake up from the ignorant direction the so called studies are taking the human kind to. And stop calling it science. Dr. B.M. Hedge suggested long ago that all the studies done on animals or humans are wrong and inefficient in so many fronts. His words - According to ayurveda, human body can be classified into around 200 types based on the K/P/H balance of a body. A medicine that works for one may be totally neutral for another. So, you read a paper that claims it got awesome results on a random blindfold study, the question Dr. Hedge asks is what type of the 200 human body types is it efficient? Apparently there is a body type that gives neutral or negative results (ignoring side effects). Talk about working it on animals first! (-ve downvotes welcome)
- bonzini 8y ago
  > According to ayurveda, human body can be classified into around 200 types based on the K/P/H balance of a body. Maybe you'd first need peer-reviewed research to prove that...
- fifnir 8y ago
  Here's a nice smackdown which I don't have the time or knowledge to offer myself: "He abandons [Dr. B.M. Hegde] all rational thinking and embraces fantastical belief systems. The sad thing is I personally know many people delaying cancer treatment being swayed by his speeches and ending up with incurable metastasis later." https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-controversial-views-of-Dr-B-M-Hegde-when-it-comes-to-medicine-and-doctors https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-controversial-vi...
  - rajadigopula 8y ago
    Understood. May be the modern world needs another wim hof to become a subject to the existing science - validity though current limited existing medical tools to prove/validate that humans can get access to autonomous nervous system and heal themselves (which was thought to be impossible in modern days). The approach Dr. hedge took is not registering with the rest of the world according to the comments above. May be he should have proven his claims subjecting to the existing methods just to give that level of confidence who trusts it like wim hof did.
JohnJamesRambo 8y ago
I've been in science quite some time and worked with lots of rats in animal care facilities and this is the first time I've heard of the fact that mice need 30 deg. C instead of normal room temperatures to avoid stress.

by dtech 8y ago

Except for maybe the last paragraph, this is not new information to basically anyone performing studies. The problem is we don't have any ethically and scientifically better alternatives.

bayesian_horse 8y ago

We are getting there. In-vitro methods, often involving cell cultures, are gaining traction. In-silico, also. Robotic automation and synthetic biology help with that a lot. Machine learning can help make sense of more limited data, for example predicting toxicity and other parameters for drugs so that you can better choose what to forward to Human trials.

klmr 8y ago
In vitro studies have been done for ages, but are often a worse model than closely related organisms. For instance, there are various human cancer cell lines and while these are routinely used to study various aspects of biology (cancer being just one of them), they are generally a poor model for drug trials. The current research trend goes towards developing organoids — cell cultures with a distinct 3D organisation and biological makeup that mimics actual organs — that more closely resemble actual human tissues. It’s still early days though.
- bayesian_horse 8y ago
  Organoids do count as in vitro. And as I said, synthetic biology, automation and machine learning help in improving these methods. Nothing can replace certain studies in Humans completely. We can only hope to make those more effective by better choice of candidate drugs.
  - klmr 8y ago
    Absolutely. My phrasing wasn’t clear, I was contrasting organoids with the cell cultures mentioned in your reply, not with in vitro studies in general.
    - Amygaz 8y ago
      Organoids, organ-on-chip, 3D cell cultures, have all shown to be equivalent to each other, and better than standard 2D cell culture. Ultimately they are not very complex, definitely more than a monoculture, but no where near an organism that evolved from a single cell. They haven’t shown to be a good proxy for a whole organism. On term of disease model, they are typically artificial in the sense that genetically engineer the cell with a specific mutation that may or may not represent the disease or the population. And if an experiment doesn’t work the way you want, you are a new set and sometimes it works the way you want. The only two things they have over mice is that they can be from human origin, and sometimes that human origin might be in a disease state that you want to study, which might be the only way to generate a model for complex disease...
      - bayesian_horse 8y ago
        In-vitro and In-silico modelling might be of great use is for known problems that come up for candidate drugs in the early clinical phase: Interaction with receptors (blood/brain barrier, QT prolongation etc) or liver proteins or the like. Of course, we are talking about the fruits on the drug tree which are potentially reachable by singular small molecule drugs.

rajadigopula 8y ago

There is an alternate. To wake up from the ignorant direction the so called studies are taking the human kind to. And stop calling it science. Dr. B.M. Hedge suggested long ago that all the studies done on animals or humans are wrong and inefficient in so many fronts. His words - According to ayurveda, human body can be classified into around 200 types based on the K/P/H balance of a body. A medicine that works for one may be totally neutral for another. So, you read a paper that claims it got awesome results on a random blindfold study, the question Dr. Hedge asks is what type of the 200 human body types is it efficient? Apparently there is a body type that gives neutral or negative results (ignoring side effects). Talk about working it on animals first! (-ve downvotes welcome)

bonzini 8y ago
> According to ayurveda, human body can be classified into around 200 types based on the K/P/H balance of a body. Maybe you'd first need peer-reviewed research to prove that...
fifnir 8y ago
Here's a nice smackdown which I don't have the time or knowledge to offer myself: "He abandons [Dr. B.M. Hegde] all rational thinking and embraces fantastical belief systems. The sad thing is I personally know many people delaying cancer treatment being swayed by his speeches and ending up with incurable metastasis later." https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-controversial-views-of-Dr-B-M-Hegde-when-it-comes-to-medicine-and-doctors https://www.quora.com/Do-you-agree-with-the-controversial-vi...
- rajadigopula 8y ago
  Understood. May be the modern world needs another wim hof to become a subject to the existing science - validity though current limited existing medical tools to prove/validate that humans can get access to autonomous nervous system and heal themselves (which was thought to be impossible in modern days). The approach Dr. hedge took is not registering with the rest of the world according to the comments above. May be he should have proven his claims subjecting to the existing methods just to give that level of confidence who trusts it like wim hof did.

JohnJamesRambo 8y ago

I've been in science quite some time and worked with lots of rats in animal care facilities and this is the first time I've heard of the fact that mice need 30 deg. C instead of normal room temperatures to avoid stress.