3 ms·
No, the issue is that mice are very different from humans. The only thing such a state of affairs clearly indicates is broken is using mice as proto-human test
by estearum 11mo ago
No, the issue is that mice are very different from humans.
The only thing such a state of affairs clearly indicates is broken is using mice as proto-human test subjects.
Which of course, when you state it like that, is obviously suboptimal. But no one knows what to do about it.
- d--b 11mo agoRight, yes, at least that study proved that some bacteria eat cancerous cells in at least one mammal. If that particular bacteria doesn't work in humans it may still trigger a search for a bacteria that does. Still being optimistic about this :)
- estearum 11mo agoYep, it's not wasted effort. This is how science works! Lots of dead ends and then suddenly a breakthrough.
- gus_massa 11mo agoMice are good because they are super cheap. It's useful as a very early test. They used a shotgun approach, they tested 9 bacterias and 1 of them was suspenseful. At least it was suspenseful for 2 weeks, until the study ended. It's very difficult to extrapolate that to the 5 year survival rate in humans.
- estearum 11mo agoCorrect, this is how drug development works.