3 ms·

Basically, doing "normal" biology/psychology experiments "lab" mice is sort of like doing those experiments on astronauts living on the moon. A rather horrid mi

by gohrt 13y ago

Basically, doing "normal" biology/psychology experiments "lab" mice is sort of like doing those experiments on astronauts living on the moon. A rather horrid mis-approximation of the experience/behavior of normal population. The moden scientific laboratory design puts so much emphasis on precision (cages, diets, etc, for consistent experimental outcomes), that it fails miserably at accuracy (similarity to what non-experimental individuals)

saalweachter 13y ago
We've always known that lab animals are not perfect models of human biology. For instance, human livers -- for our body weight -- are several times larger than mouse livers. This has important consequences on how we deal with toxins. Mice have been valuable tools not because of how good a model they are but because they're cheap and fast. Apes are a much better animal model for most purposes, but they're expensive and slow, and raise way more moral questions. And people as test subjects are all that and a bag of chips. Instead, researchers using animals work to understand how an animal model compares to humans. They pick their animal test subjects based on what they're researching; for instance, rabbits might be better for researching a particular disease, and cats might be better for researching a particular cognitive disorder. So -- assuming this new information holds up to replication -- what this means is that we potentially have a more accurate, cheaper animal model on hand than we previously thought. If mice at 31C behave significantly differently than mice at 25C, then researchers will be able to use mice in cases they previously weren't, eliminating the need for other animal models or even some human testing in some cases (eg, the experiments will fail at mice and never make it to human testing). This will save money, and speed up research.

by gohrt 13y ago

saalweachter 13y ago

We've always known that lab animals are not perfect models of human biology. For instance, human livers -- for our body weight -- are several times larger than mouse livers. This has important consequences on how we deal with toxins. Mice have been valuable tools not because of how good a model they are but because they're cheap and fast. Apes are a much better animal model for most purposes, but they're expensive and slow, and raise way more moral questions. And people as test subjects are all that and a bag of chips. Instead, researchers using animals work to understand how an animal model compares to humans. They pick their animal test subjects based on what they're researching; for instance, rabbits might be better for researching a particular disease, and cats might be better for researching a particular cognitive disorder. So -- assuming this new information holds up to replication -- what this means is that we potentially have a more accurate, cheaper animal model on hand than we previously thought. If mice at 31C behave significantly differently than mice at 25C, then researchers will be able to use mice in cases they previously weren't, eliminating the need for other animal models or even some human testing in some cases (eg, the experiments will fail at mice and never make it to human testing). This will save money, and speed up research.