What scientific idea is ready for retirement?

[n2doc]

snip:
MOUSE MODELS


AZRA RAZA
Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York

An obvious truth that is either being ignored or going unaddressed in cancer research is that mouse models do not mimic human disease well and are essentially worthless for drug development. We cured acute leukaemia in mice in 1977 with drugs that we are still using in exactly the same dose and duration today in humans with dreadful results. Imagine the artificiality of taking human tumour cells, growing them in lab dishes, then transferring them to mice whose immune systems have been compromised so they cannot reject the implanted tumours, and then exposing these "xenografts" to drugs whose killing efficiency and toxicity profiles will then be applied to treat human cancers. The pitfalls of such an entirely synthesized non-natural model system have also plagued other disciplines.

A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community.

One blogger said: "There is no basis for leveraging a niche piece of research to imply that mice are useless models for all human diseases." In an article for the Jackson Laboratory, three leading physician scientists concluded: "The key is to construct the appropriate mouse models and design the experimental conditions that mirror the human situation."

The problem is there are no appropriate mouse models that can mimic the human situation. So why is the cancer research community continuing to be dominated by the dysfunctional tradition of employing mouse models to test hypotheses for development of new drugs?

many more

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/12/what-scientific-idea-is-ready-for-retirement-edge-org

[Vincardog]

1. So why is the cancer research community continuing to be dominated by the dysfunctional tradition of

tradition of employing mouse models to test hypotheses for development of new drugs?
Because that dysfunctional tradition grants them
licenses to sell drugs to humans at great PROFIT.

[Warpy]

3. You're missing a lot of the steps from mouse to market

Mice were used mostly because of the fast and prolific breeding cycle. They could be genetically modified rather easily to mimic human disease and scientists erroneously assumed what was good for the mouse might be good for men. Unfortunately, that led them down a lot of expensive blind alleys.

The alternative is using a lot of higher animals we can relate to a lot better than we relate to mice.

[xfundy]

2. I would think that by now computer models could work.

But then, I'm not a scientist or part of big pharma.

[bananas]

5. Not even close. nt

[jmowreader]

4. Unfortunately, human experimentation is not allowed

Because if it was, we have plenty of sex offenders, murderers and Republican politicians.