Official "Science News" Thread

[ewmayer]

Originally Posted by chalsall

"If you find yourself with an erection for more than four hours, consult your doctor."

"...but first go outside and wave it about for a while, take a few pictures and consider making a plaster mold to document the happy occasion for Priapic posterity."

[kladner]

I know someone who has experienced the prolonged erection, and had to get his doctor to subdue it with an injection in the organ in question. The reason for this warning is that blood clotting can occur with very unfortunate results.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by kladner

I know someone who has experienced the prolonged erection, and had to get his doctor to subdue it with an injection in the organ in question. The reason for this warning is that blood clotting can occur with very unfortunate results.

Understood.

The problem is many "rich" people are sold drugs which don't "Make Sense".

When was the last time your doctor said to you "OK, I'm going to prescribe this drug to you. But it might kill you."?

[only_human]

Originally Posted by ewmayer

Thanks, Science and Nature -- I wonder how many researchers who have made careers from mouse models sit on those editorial boards?

Exactly. I left that board part out because I thought it would wave a flag before I got some opinions. I also made no commentary beyond my choice of selections (an especially slight form of abstracting). I am very uncomfortable quoting without commenting because it treads closer to boundaries of fair use but I wanted to get some commentary, especially from you, Paul, or Batelov while minimizing biasing from my opinions. I was unsure of the value but wanted to hear what you guy's would say. I find it all very interesting and a good example of the process of science and science publication (good and bad).

[Batalov]

Dunning-Kruger always exhibits itself, and I am not saying that to belittle people who post something like this in comments:

Let's abandon all testing on animals. There have been study after study that indicate that the results of animal testing are not transferable. Let's stop torturing mice, monkeys, cats, and other animals in the interest of selling pharmaceuticals that in the end don't do much for human beings yet make a big profit for the pharmaceutical companies. Just as is the case with the financial industry and appropriate practices in this country, it is regrettably necessary to provide oversight at taxpayer expense to see that drugs are appropriately researched and manufactured.

I assume that these people are honest and passionate about poor animals. They just don't know what they are talking about. And by Dunning-Kruger effect, they clearly assume that there's not much to know there. Just stop the testing and all will be fine.

The probably also think the phrase "billions of dollars were wasted" is about taxpayer expenses and should be regulated. (Billions of dollars are usually the money of the private companies, and rest assured that they do count the money and they assess risks in risky research etc etc.) Again, let's just stop useless tests and do the useful ones. Obviously!

In contrast, those who know the subject, know how many facets are there to every question, but most of them are not vocal. There's an intersection of people who know the subject and can talk. I like this other comment (almost a textbook answer with just enough details make the point and not overwhelm the reader with tedium):

In development of a drug to treat a particular disease or condition, the first vertebrate models of choice are mice and rats. The physiology and pathology of these species are very similar to humans and mice. In some cases, tests are performed with mice whose immune systems have been replaced by a human immune system. In other cases, the mice carry a human copy of a specific gene-the gene that is targeted by the candidate drug. Success of those tests does not insure that the drug will work on humans, but if the drug fails its tests in rodents it is unlikely that development of the drug will proceed further. However, if a promising drug passes all of its tests in rodents, there is rationale for pursuing further tests in other mammals, including primates. These tests are much more costly in time and money.

Yes, there are failures. But all drugs that are currently on the market were tested at some time in rodents and the health of the citizens of the world is marked improved by those drugs.

Research such as that being published by Dr. Warren PNAS is an essential part of the process of scientific discovery. It warns us in the biomedical community to retain a high level of skepticism about any one report of a scientific breakthrough. But because of this skepticism, the system is self-correcting and human knowledge and human health care advances.

(emphasis mine)
It had been said before - e.g. in re: arsenic story, "is this a failure of science, of scientific process? -- No, it is the integral part of it."

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by Batalov

It had been said before - e.g. in re: arsenic story, "is this a failure of science, of scientific process? -- No, it is the integral part of it."

The question is, how many will understand?

[only_human]

Originally Posted by chalsall

The question is, how many will understand?

We understand though.

In this brave new world that has such people in't, uninformed opinions and Dunning-Kruger effects don't drown everything out because it's not hard to find quality opinions if one knows how to look.

Sure, many won't bother parsing the word market bazaar of opinions but canny shoppers everywhere are constantly learning that not all emporiums carry fine goods.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by only_human

We understand though.

In this brave new world that has such people in't, uninformed opinions and Dunning-Kruger effects don't drown everything out because it's not hard to find quality opinions if one knows how to look.

Sure, many won't bother parsing the word market bazaar of opinions but canny shoppers everywhere are constantly learning that not all emporiums carry fine goods.

Agreed.

But while we float above the "simple humans" might we care about them?

[only_human]

Originally Posted by chalsall

Agreed.

But while we float above the "simple humans" might we care about them?

We must -- because we are often mistaken about which group we are in, at any particular time.

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by only_human

We must -- because we are often mistaken about which group we are in, at any particular time.

Agreed.

[LaurV]

@SB: Both of them (#835 and #841).