3 ms·

Obligatory clarification: in mice. But so exciting anyways!

OJFord 2y ago
That's not really such a caveat when it's a discovery of a natural phenomenon. (And I assume subsequently discovering that these cells don't exhibit that behaviour in humans would be just as interesting to the field.)
- jb1991 2y ago
  The microwave was originally invented to reanimate -- that is, bring back to life -- small frozen animals... and it worked. But, they soon discovered this would not work on humans primarily due to the size. In other words, size does matter. They eventually found another application for the microwave, which now sits in most kitchens.
  - knome 2y ago
    The microwave was invented after a tech noticed a radar they were working on melting a candy bar in their pocket. It was initially aimed at food preparation.
    - jecel 2y ago
      Both stories are true as the microwave oven was invented twice independently.
    - peterfirefly 2y ago
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y "A hamster is an acceptable size." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1956.0054 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1956.005... "Studies on golden hamsters during cooling to and rewarming from body temperatures below 0° C. III. Biophysical aspects and general discussion"
  - daedrdev 2y ago
    I'm pretty sure someone did experiments with a microwave trying to reanimate life but that was well after it was invented.
    - peterfirefly 2y ago
      Lovelock's version (for reanimating frozen hamsters) was almost certainly the first desktop version. The earlier commercial microwave ovens were huge.
    - jb1991 2y ago
      Here is an interview with the inventor of the microwave: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y
burnished 2y ago
The discovery isn't stated to be scoped to 'in mice', just the claim that a specific treatment was effective in mice (at targeting a specific population of t cells). I can't say for certain but the discovery itself may apply just as well to humans?
- jb1991 2y ago
  I’m curious since I often see this assumption: why do you assume that if something is true in a mouse that it is therefore true in a human? This is often not true yet people often draw that conclusion as their first natural reaction.
  - jfengel 2y ago
    The "in mice" caveat is best used for medical treatments. Treatments are less likely to generalize than discoveries. A treatment has to work in every specific. There are many, many ways a treatment that works in mice can fail in humans. Any one of them scuppers it. But when you're talking about a discovery, it's probable that it applies to both. It matters less if the human version is somewhat different from the mouse model, as long as it's homologous.
  - burnished 2y ago
    Because the article did not draw that distinction, but it did draw that distinction for other observations. Specifically the more general observation was stated more generally (white blood cell activity discovered to be region specific), and scoped more specific claims to be 'in mice' (and these drugs target specific regions). But to be blunt it seems like your query would be best resolved by looking into the history of rodents as lab animals for preliminary medical studies. I cannot give you a robust account, if google fails I recommend asking a librarian for help or contacting people who have published on the topic. Do not fear impinging, I think for many it is an opportunity to share a special interest with an interested third party (a rare treat).

That's not really such a caveat when it's a discovery of a natural phenomenon. (And I assume subsequently discovering that these cells don't exhibit that behaviour in humans would be just as interesting to the field.)

jb1991 2y ago
The microwave was originally invented to reanimate -- that is, bring back to life -- small frozen animals... and it worked. But, they soon discovered this would not work on humans primarily due to the size. In other words, size does matter. They eventually found another application for the microwave, which now sits in most kitchens.
- knome 2y ago
  The microwave was invented after a tech noticed a radar they were working on melting a candy bar in their pocket. It was initially aimed at food preparation.
  - jecel 2y ago
    Both stories are true as the microwave oven was invented twice independently.
  - peterfirefly 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y "A hamster is an acceptable size." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1956.0054 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1956.005... "Studies on golden hamsters during cooling to and rewarming from body temperatures below 0° C. III. Biophysical aspects and general discussion"
- daedrdev 2y ago
  I'm pretty sure someone did experiments with a microwave trying to reanimate life but that was well after it was invented.
  - peterfirefly 2y ago
    Lovelock's version (for reanimating frozen hamsters) was almost certainly the first desktop version. The earlier commercial microwave ovens were huge.
  - jb1991 2y ago
    Here is an interview with the inventor of the microwave: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2tdiKTSdE9Y

burnished 2y ago

The discovery isn't stated to be scoped to 'in mice', just the claim that a specific treatment was effective in mice (at targeting a specific population of t cells). I can't say for certain but the discovery itself may apply just as well to humans?

jb1991 2y ago
I’m curious since I often see this assumption: why do you assume that if something is true in a mouse that it is therefore true in a human? This is often not true yet people often draw that conclusion as their first natural reaction.
- jfengel 2y ago
  The "in mice" caveat is best used for medical treatments. Treatments are less likely to generalize than discoveries. A treatment has to work in every specific. There are many, many ways a treatment that works in mice can fail in humans. Any one of them scuppers it. But when you're talking about a discovery, it's probable that it applies to both. It matters less if the human version is somewhat different from the mouse model, as long as it's homologous.
- burnished 2y ago
  Because the article did not draw that distinction, but it did draw that distinction for other observations. Specifically the more general observation was stated more generally (white blood cell activity discovered to be region specific), and scoped more specific claims to be 'in mice' (and these drugs target specific regions). But to be blunt it seems like your query would be best resolved by looking into the history of rodents as lab animals for preliminary medical studies. I cannot give you a robust account, if google fails I recommend asking a librarian for help or contacting people who have published on the topic. Do not fear impinging, I think for many it is an opportunity to share a special interest with an interested third party (a rare treat).