alt Hacker NewsNo, 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.
Replies
d--b • last Thursday at 4:10 PM
Right, 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 :)
➕ show 1 reply
Mice 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.