4 ms·
@dang or whoever: I want to protest the recent (as in, after it was originally posted) addition of "in mice" to the title of this thread. It turns a significant
by gwerbret 2y ago
@dang or whoever: I want to protest the recent (as in, after it was originally posted) addition of "in mice" to the title of this thread. It turns a significant scientific discovery into something that seems tawdry and meaningless. Discoveries in mice involving novel biological mechanisms can be important for at least 3 reasons:
- The mechanisms discovered work exactly the same way in humans. This is not a long shot at all, as mice aren't that far from humans genetically and physiologically.
- The mechanisms work slightly different in humans, pointing us to different natural solutions to a problem.
- The mechanisms work entirely different in humans, pointing us to potentially-important evolutionary divergences (maybe the biology was improved on in humans).
In any of these instances, the findings remain important, and "in mice" just cheapens that. After all, this work was published in Nature, which is still one of the top journals in any research field. The folks running the journal may have their issues, but they're not all idiots.
Edit: wording.
- bheadmaster 2y ago> It turns a significant scientific discovery into something that seems tawdry and meaningless. > Discoveries in mice involving novel biological mechanisms can be important [...] If discoveries in mice can be important, then how does stating that they're in mice make them less important?
- gwerbret 2y agoBecause people have a tendency to automatically dismiss findings when they're said to be "in mice".
- defrost 2y agoMore to the point, it's a gendered difference, in mice and likely in humans also. “One of the remarkable things about these findings is that if we hadn’t been studying female mice, which unfortunately is the norm in biomedical research, then we could have completely missed out on this finding,” Many people understand that results in mice indicate similar results in humans, those that don't are likely to misunderstand or dismiss work in other ways in any case.
- unaindz 2y agoI'm not sure if they tested on males but my understanding is that the hormone is produced by females but arguably could work on males too, just like with TRT where being biologically female doesn't deprive of the testosterone effects.
- bheadmaster 2y agoThat's because people assume that research is done on humans, if the sample species is not specified. Wouldn't it be dishonest to exploit that assumption?
- FrustratedMonky 2y agoThe 'in mice' has become another talking point on 'the right', mainly to discredit science and 'studies' in general. And that all 'mice' based studies are false. It is the main talking point of the Weinstein brothers on their podcast. But their main thrust is not the reasonable list of points by the OP, the Weinstein point is that all mice studies are meaningless junk science and don't mean anything. So, the 'in mice' has become a moniker for 'bad science' from those on 'the right'.
- Al-Khwarizmi 2y agoI would say it turns an OK headline into a more precise headline.
- DonHopkins 2y agoYeah, and why do people always add "in mice" after reading a fortune cookie? It makes their predictions seem so much less serious.