3 ms·

Except the reason the "in mice" meme exists is because there are countless studies which produce an effect in mice which is not reproducible in humans. In an a

Except the reason the "in mice" meme exists is because there are countless studies which produce an effect in mice which is not reproducible in humans. In an absence of evidence, we cannot make one claim or another. "In mice" is just a good indicator that actual human research is needed. I'm not a biologist so I'll leave the theory and research to qualified people.

Retric 3y ago
What people misunderstand about mouse studies is they much better at telling if something is harmful than if it’s beneficial. Toss a mouse in a vacuum, expose them to high levels of radiation, etc and the underlying similarities between mammal biology tells you quite a bit. Try and cure baldness and no it’s not that helpful in terms of if something works but it’s a great check it see if you accidentally made a neurotoxin. So in this case we have quite strong evidence that microplastics from food can get into human bloodstreams. Is it worth testing? That just comes down to an arbitrary assessment of just much you’re willing to spend to reduce what little uncertainty remains.
- jstanley 3y ago
  When something reliably kills mice do we routinely proceed to human trials? If not, how do we know that things that are harmful to mice are harmful to humans any more often than things that are helpful to mice are helpful to humans?
  - reactordev 3y ago
    The scientific method.
- lIl-IIIl 3y ago
  A famous counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_addition_and_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_additi... > However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[36][37] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by overproducing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated risk of bladder cancer.[38]
  - Retric 3y ago
    Worth remembering. False positive are notably less dangerous than false negatives, but very relevant to the discussion.

Retric 3y ago

What people misunderstand about mouse studies is they much better at telling if something is harmful than if it’s beneficial. Toss a mouse in a vacuum, expose them to high levels of radiation, etc and the underlying similarities between mammal biology tells you quite a bit. Try and cure baldness and no it’s not that helpful in terms of if something works but it’s a great check it see if you accidentally made a neurotoxin. So in this case we have quite strong evidence that microplastics from food can get into human bloodstreams. Is it worth testing? That just comes down to an arbitrary assessment of just much you’re willing to spend to reduce what little uncertainty remains.

jstanley 3y ago
When something reliably kills mice do we routinely proceed to human trials? If not, how do we know that things that are harmful to mice are harmful to humans any more often than things that are helpful to mice are helpful to humans?
- reactordev 3y ago
  The scientific method.
lIl-IIIl 3y ago
A famous counterexample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_addition_and_removal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccharin#Warning_label_additi... > However, in 2000, the warning labels were removed because scientists learned that rodents, unlike humans, have a unique combination of high pH, high calcium phosphate, and high protein levels in their urine.[36][37] One or more of the proteins that are more prevalent in male rats combine with calcium phosphate and saccharin to produce microcrystals that damage the lining of the bladder. Over time, the rat's bladder responds to this damage by overproducing cells to repair the damage, which leads to tumor formation. Since this does not occur in humans, there is no elevated risk of bladder cancer.[38]
- Retric 3y ago
  Worth remembering. False positive are notably less dangerous than false negatives, but very relevant to the discussion.