3 ms·

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 ce

• 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).