3 ms·
In mice.
by pfd1986 3y ago
In mice.
- scns 3y agoYes but we have to start somewhere.
- stavros 3y agoWhich is stronger evidence for humans than "in nowhere".
- flappyeagle 3y agoThis is the stupidest glib reply format on par with “citation needed” and “tell me you’re [thing] without telling me you’re [thing]” Animal models are used in research. Is this news to you? Do you think people don’t know that?
- calf 3y ago"In mice" is one of those shorthand sayings that scientists/professors themselves coined, it's not as dismissive as you're making it out. In this context of social media it's very useful as a reminder.
- pfd1986 3y agoIndeed. My postdoc advisor who was prominent in the AD field used to remind us that "Alzheimer's has been solved in mice hundreds of times". This headline would potentially be Nobel worthy if in humans.
- l8_to_catch_up 3y agoAnd not just any mice; specially bred mice. So it's not even generalizable to all mice, much less humans. More studies are needed.
- andriesm 3y agoIb my younger days I used to get all excitef about new scientific breakthroughs. After decades I know better and apply the heuristic of disregard whenever I come across the hidden punch-line "In mice". It really is a very good metric for preventing you to get sucked into hype that will 99.99 percent of the time result in exactly zero real world impact 10 years later.
- stavros 3y agoExcept the 0.01% of breakthroughs had tons of real world impact to humans also worked in mice, so what does the metric tell you?