3 ms·

> It turns a significant scientific discovery into something that seems tawdry and meaningless. > Discoveries in mice involving novel biological mechanisms can

> 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 ago
Because people have a tendency to automatically dismiss findings when they're said to be "in mice".
- defrost 2y ago
  More 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 ago
    I'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 ago
  That'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 ago
The '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'.

gwerbret 2y ago

Because people have a tendency to automatically dismiss findings when they're said to be "in mice".

defrost 2y ago
More 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 ago
  I'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 ago
That'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 ago

The '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'.