Neuroscience

Articles and news from the latest research reports.

48 notes

In research, it matters whether you’re a man or a mouse
Mice are poor stand-ins for people in experiments on some types of inflammation, a new study concludes. But some scientists say that critique discounts the value of mouse studies, many of which simply couldn’t be done without the animals.
More attention — and money — should go toward studying disease in people than on mouse research, a consortium of scientists contends online February 11 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Too often, researchers make a discovery in mice and assume that humans will react in the same way, says study coauthor Ronald Tompkins, chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital burn service. “The presumption is not justifiable,” he says. As a result, drug trials — often based heavily on data gleaned from studies with mice — can fail. 
But other scientists say that critique isn’t new and is overstated. Clinical trials are unsuccessful for many reasons, says Derry Roopenian, an immunologist and mouse geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine. “There’s frailty all along the process. That’s not a failure of the mouse.”
He and other critics worry that the study, conducted with a generic strain of laboratory mouse called Black6, unfairly tarnishes the reputation of all mice, even ones engineered to be as much like humans as possible. The group’s conclusions, were they accepted by policy makers, could set back biomedical research by jeopardizing funding for mouse studies, critics warn. “Without the mouse, progress is going to be slowed to a standstill,” Roopenian says.
Most of the researchers agree that creating mice with biologic responses that more closely mirror humans is important to understand diseases and develop new drugs. The sticking point appears to be how to balance mouse-based research with research involving humans.

In research, it matters whether you’re a man or a mouse

Mice are poor stand-ins for people in experiments on some types of inflammation, a new study concludes. But some scientists say that critique discounts the value of mouse studies, many of which simply couldn’t be done without the animals.

More attention — and money — should go toward studying disease in people than on mouse research, a consortium of scientists contends online February 11 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Too often, researchers make a discovery in mice and assume that humans will react in the same way, says study coauthor Ronald Tompkins, chief of the Massachusetts General Hospital burn service. “The presumption is not justifiable,” he says. As a result, drug trials — often based heavily on data gleaned from studies with mice — can fail. 

But other scientists say that critique isn’t new and is overstated. Clinical trials are unsuccessful for many reasons, says Derry Roopenian, an immunologist and mouse geneticist at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine. “There’s frailty all along the process. That’s not a failure of the mouse.”

He and other critics worry that the study, conducted with a generic strain of laboratory mouse called Black6, unfairly tarnishes the reputation of all mice, even ones engineered to be as much like humans as possible. The group’s conclusions, were they accepted by policy makers, could set back biomedical research by jeopardizing funding for mouse studies, critics warn. “Without the mouse, progress is going to be slowed to a standstill,” Roopenian says.

Most of the researchers agree that creating mice with biologic responses that more closely mirror humans is important to understand diseases and develop new drugs. The sticking point appears to be how to balance mouse-based research with research involving humans.

Filed under inflammatory diseases gene expression genomic response animal model science

  1. dclxvii reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  2. alexonn reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  3. supermallory reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  4. psychoneurogenesis reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  5. heckaballer reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  6. technikully reblogged this from lifegoesonwithinandwithoutyou
  7. lifegoesonwithinandwithoutyou reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  8. godismylighthouse reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  9. dwarfysays reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  10. amonniel reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  11. sconic-screwdriver reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  12. sillur6 reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  13. alazywriterthinks reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  14. miscellaneousmud reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  15. demonicdeadman88 reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  16. kellythepsycho reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  17. fromtheweirdtotheinsane reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  18. lizzigator reblogged this from neurosciencestuff
  19. neurosciencestuff posted this
free counters