Happy to see it in HN, if only as a canonical example of the current “rage” of reductionist n-of-1 science funded by you and others through NIH and many other r

Happy to see it in HN, if only as a canonical example of the current “rage” of reductionist n-of-1 science funded by you and others through NIH and many other research funders. This is the very opposite of robust and translatable research. It is science to “get a paper out” with a snappy press release. Would you trust n-of-1 clinical trial? One monozygotic twin gets diet X, the other is control. A study of C57BL/6N mice, no matter how many are used is an n-of-1 study. And these mice all completely inbred. At least the human MZ twins are not inbred! There is just no excuse for style of reductionist science. Gives mouse models a terrible, but perhaps deservedly bad reputation for translational ir-relevance. Yet you see these n-of-1 studies in many of the top tier journals. The NIH BRAIN initiative mouse studies make the same error. Do we really want just ONE connectome? How do we compute our way to causal models with n-of-1?