3 ms·

If you honestly believe this, then you are dismissing nearly all experimental biology. This is a reason why scientists wanted to keep CLOSED journals, because o

If you honestly believe this, then you are dismissing nearly all experimental biology. This is a reason why scientists wanted to keep CLOSED journals, because of the lack of interpretation by the wider world. Not all publications are the final word, it's a model. Search my comment history for a deeper dive on this one. It's not a productive reply. You might not like it, but that is the state of the art. Animal models are 100% a valid way to do things. Also ITT: HN figures out that natural childbirth involves poop touching a newborn. Cmon, seriously? How do you not know this?

JPLeRouzic 4y ago
> If you honestly believe this, then you are dismissing nearly all experimental biology. Even if I hate this idea, just for the sake of argument: What about animal models closer to humans? Rodents are not primates: * Phylogeny tells they are very far from primates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glires * In some rodent species, the tail is capable of regeneration. * It can refresh them. * Rodents have efficient digestive systems, absorbing nearly 80% of ingested energy. * They can eat cellulose. They have specific bacteria in their guts that can reduce it to its carbohydrate elements. * Some species are sensitive to ultraviolet light. * Whisker action is mostly driven by the brain stem, which is itself provoked by the cortex
- anarticle 4y ago
  Hate away! As I've said before, out of hand dismissal of any publishing due to mouse models is very in fashion here at HN. I strongly agree with you that primates would be a better model, from a cost is no object, no public opinion perspective. In fact, probably to many people's non-surprise, most primate work has been moved to China to avoid scrutiny. Last I saw at my place, primates were primarily (ha!) used for behavioral studies and nothing grisly. I'll see your "here are the differences" and raise you a here are the similarities to humans: * We're around 85% genetically identical to mice overall if we dump (actually controversial idea) junk DNA. This number varies on who you ask. * Certain genes can be up to 99% the same. Your gene of interest being similar is important. * We're both mammals. (some models are not) * We share many of the same biochemical systems, endocrine, etc. * Many genes for known diseases are shared. Disease similarity can be very high. (think cancer, atherosclerosis, diabetes) * Mice can be made immunodeficient and used with human material. * Very well studied life cycle, and measurement of health. We know most measurable parameters and their nominal ranges. To harmonize with your idea of differences to humans here are the ones that make mice even more useful: * Reproduce fast, this means ideas can be tested early and often. * Small. Cheap to house, and make at scale. * Genetically identical clones: we're better than ever at this now. This increases our ability to repeat and vet research. It is completely standard for work to be done in mice. This constant dismissal of mouse models is a nothing burger. Animal models don't always pan out, however that's the state of the art. I agree with you that in a no holds barred world primates would be universally better. In the US, IACUC exists because of primate experiments gone off the rails at Penn in the 80s. "Unnecessary Fuss" is the vid/incident. Video release was 83 I think? IACUC showed up 1985. This put primate work in the US under intense scrutiny and not without reason. Oh and for what it's worth, I've never see a lab rodent's tail come back in 6 years of working with them. :) You are sending me on a new search! Maybe if we're lucky we'll see a response from microbiome person. I'll admit my reply was spicy, but grandparent's reply is borderline noise / bot tier discourse. HN can do better, and I think your reply is a good sign of that!

JPLeRouzic 4y ago

> If you honestly believe this, then you are dismissing nearly all experimental biology. Even if I hate this idea, just for the sake of argument: What about animal models closer to humans? Rodents are not primates: * Phylogeny tells they are very far from primates: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glires * In some rodent species, the tail is capable of regeneration. * It can refresh them. * Rodents have efficient digestive systems, absorbing nearly 80% of ingested energy. * They can eat cellulose. They have specific bacteria in their guts that can reduce it to its carbohydrate elements. * Some species are sensitive to ultraviolet light. * Whisker action is mostly driven by the brain stem, which is itself provoked by the cortex

anarticle 4y ago
Hate away! As I've said before, out of hand dismissal of any publishing due to mouse models is very in fashion here at HN. I strongly agree with you that primates would be a better model, from a cost is no object, no public opinion perspective. In fact, probably to many people's non-surprise, most primate work has been moved to China to avoid scrutiny. Last I saw at my place, primates were primarily (ha!) used for behavioral studies and nothing grisly. I'll see your "here are the differences" and raise you a here are the similarities to humans: * We're around 85% genetically identical to mice overall if we dump (actually controversial idea) junk DNA. This number varies on who you ask. * Certain genes can be up to 99% the same. Your gene of interest being similar is important. * We're both mammals. (some models are not) * We share many of the same biochemical systems, endocrine, etc. * Many genes for known diseases are shared. Disease similarity can be very high. (think cancer, atherosclerosis, diabetes) * Mice can be made immunodeficient and used with human material. * Very well studied life cycle, and measurement of health. We know most measurable parameters and their nominal ranges. To harmonize with your idea of differences to humans here are the ones that make mice even more useful: * Reproduce fast, this means ideas can be tested early and often. * Small. Cheap to house, and make at scale. * Genetically identical clones: we're better than ever at this now. This increases our ability to repeat and vet research. It is completely standard for work to be done in mice. This constant dismissal of mouse models is a nothing burger. Animal models don't always pan out, however that's the state of the art. I agree with you that in a no holds barred world primates would be universally better. In the US, IACUC exists because of primate experiments gone off the rails at Penn in the 80s. "Unnecessary Fuss" is the vid/incident. Video release was 83 I think? IACUC showed up 1985. This put primate work in the US under intense scrutiny and not without reason. Oh and for what it's worth, I've never see a lab rodent's tail come back in 6 years of working with them. :) You are sending me on a new search! Maybe if we're lucky we'll see a response from microbiome person. I'll admit my reply was spicy, but grandparent's reply is borderline noise / bot tier discourse. HN can do better, and I think your reply is a good sign of that!