3 ms·

As usual, I fear comments will focus on the "in mice" part, forgetting that for most base circuits (ex: brain, nerves ...) and physiology (scarring, aging, infl

by csdvrx 4y ago

As usual, I fear comments will focus on the "in mice" part, forgetting that for most base circuits (ex: brain, nerves ...) and physiology (scarring, aging, inflammation ...) they are extremely close. Also, other "cognitive enhancers" have usually found effects in both rodents and primates.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
BoorishBears 4y ago
And instead as usual, any useful commentary will be drowned out by people rushing over themselves to point out that humans aren't mice.
- glenstein 4y ago
  Exactly. I feel like it's the equivalent of the Onion article that pokes fun at that type of behavior: >Learned Sage Points Out That Powerball Not As Much After Taxes https://www.theonion.com/learned-sage-points-out-that-powerball-not-as-much-afte-1819578523 https://www.theonion.com/learned-sage-points-out-that-powerb... Whether it's mice or powerball, the lowest hanging fruit is the Learned Sage comment, noting that things aren't quite as they seem.
civilized 4y ago
And then someone will come in and tell you that most things tried in mice don't work out in humans, and we will issue a collective shrug as we don't know what to believe.
- csdvrx 4y ago
  What doesn't work in mice is typically for mouse-models of diseases: we try to replicate a disease based on what we think causes it, then try to cure it. That's typical for cancer, Alzheimer etc. No wonder the things tried in the toy problem don't work out when faced with the real problem! The problem isn't so much the mice being so different, but the disease itself being very different from the toy problem.
  - civilized 4y ago
    So how is the enhancer mouse research different from the disease mouse research that you acknowledge often doesn't work?
    - csdvrx 4y ago
      It isn't tried on a disease model, but on a core mechanism: aging.
      - Avicebron 4y ago
        spherical mice.
      - civilized 4y ago
        This all hinges on the idea that, while disease is too different between species for insights to transfer well, aging isn't like that?
        glenstein 4y ago
        Right. Their first comment was about the similarity of, in their words, base circuits and physiology.
        civilized 4y ago
        I just don't know if it's obvious that aging is a matter of base circuits and physiology and disease is less so.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  The nice thing is that you don't need to decide what to believe. You just keep doing experiments and, if well designed, they'll tell you what's true anyway. These animal model experiments are not intended to prove applicability to humans, they're intended to prove that you can take the next (tiny) step along the (extremely long) road to human applicability.
  - glenstein 4y ago
    Which in and of itself is sufficient to proceed with "huh, cool! keep up this line of research!"
- gfodor 4y ago
  Mice shedding
mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
It's not just a question of efficacy, but also safety, which can depend on more than just the systems relevant to efficacy.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
then why do 98% of these "promising" results turn out to be ineffectual in humans if we're that close biologically?

by csdvrx 4y ago

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

BoorishBears 4y ago

And instead as usual, any useful commentary will be drowned out by people rushing over themselves to point out that humans aren't mice.

glenstein 4y ago
Exactly. I feel like it's the equivalent of the Onion article that pokes fun at that type of behavior: >Learned Sage Points Out That Powerball Not As Much After Taxes https://www.theonion.com/learned-sage-points-out-that-powerball-not-as-much-afte-1819578523 https://www.theonion.com/learned-sage-points-out-that-powerb... Whether it's mice or powerball, the lowest hanging fruit is the Learned Sage comment, noting that things aren't quite as they seem.

civilized 4y ago

And then someone will come in and tell you that most things tried in mice don't work out in humans, and we will issue a collective shrug as we don't know what to believe.

csdvrx 4y ago
What doesn't work in mice is typically for mouse-models of diseases: we try to replicate a disease based on what we think causes it, then try to cure it. That's typical for cancer, Alzheimer etc. No wonder the things tried in the toy problem don't work out when faced with the real problem! The problem isn't so much the mice being so different, but the disease itself being very different from the toy problem.
- civilized 4y ago
  So how is the enhancer mouse research different from the disease mouse research that you acknowledge often doesn't work?
  - csdvrx 4y ago
    It isn't tried on a disease model, but on a core mechanism: aging.
    - Avicebron 4y ago
      spherical mice.
    - civilized 4y ago
      This all hinges on the idea that, while disease is too different between species for insights to transfer well, aging isn't like that?
      - glenstein 4y ago
        Right. Their first comment was about the similarity of, in their words, base circuits and physiology.
        civilized 4y ago
        I just don't know if it's obvious that aging is a matter of base circuits and physiology and disease is less so.
ethanbond 4y ago
The nice thing is that you don't need to decide what to believe. You just keep doing experiments and, if well designed, they'll tell you what's true anyway. These animal model experiments are not intended to prove applicability to humans, they're intended to prove that you can take the next (tiny) step along the (extremely long) road to human applicability.
- glenstein 4y ago
  Which in and of itself is sufficient to proceed with "huh, cool! keep up this line of research!"
gfodor 4y ago
Mice shedding

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago

It's not just a question of efficacy, but also safety, which can depend on more than just the systems relevant to efficacy.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

then why do 98% of these "promising" results turn out to be ineffectual in humans if we're that close biologically?