3 ms·
What's very interesting about this discovery, perhaps even more so than the discovery about Diabetes, is that the results directly contradict research that was
by ghshephard 13y ago
What's very interesting about this discovery, perhaps even more so than the discovery about Diabetes, is that the results directly contradict research that was conducted on Mice.
So much medical research, and drug trials, are based on the what the reactions of mice are; this discovery makes it clear we cannot rely on mice for everything.
If you read to the end of the article (spoiler) - the original paper was rejected for publication because it contradicted research that showed what was happening in humans, could not be occurring because mice reacted differently.
- ekianjo 13y agoI've been saying this for years. Most of the tox studies or efficacy studies in mice have poor or no models that correlate with human biology. They are indicative at best but should never be used to give a black or white story. The pharma industry and academia is throwing every single year dozens of potentially active molecules because they see toxicity in animals. Note that animals models have also permeated the regulatory bodies, therefore making it into de facto requirements to develop drugs. And it is so rarely ever contested on scientific grounds, where the Science part is effectively very thin.
- Ygg2 13y agoSo, we need a better mouse. How are computer simulation at modelling drug efficiency? Better than mouse, worse, unknown?
- zacinbusiness 13y agoI think they are poor because there are so manny factors involved that it's difficult to create a reliable model. But I don't know, so this is my opinion. Computers could probably help test simple hypotheses but I don't think they could be used as evidence to begin human trials.