[MrDresden]

Yes, as a logical first step.

Now we at least have hope this might work for humans.

[ekianjo]

Mice models have a very bad track record when it comes to humans. Too much junk publications out there to push papers and get credits.

[Nasrudith]

I thought the main point of mouse models was mostly to be a "first pass filter" for substances before moving onto other animals usually, sometimes humans if the straits are desperate enough. Cancer drugs in particular have little concern for long term side effects in their approval pipeline because the alternative may be having no long term.

[ekianjo]

First pass filters mean nothing when it comes to humans. 95% of all "stuff that works on mice" fails miserably on humans. We should treat such announcements with extreme skepticism.

[hungryforcodes]

You have to start somewhere though.

[jonplackett]

I would guess things like how nerves and bones work is more similar across species than, say, how drugs might work on the brain, where a mouse brain is a hell of a lot different to human. Is that a reasonable assumption?

[Kaibeezy]

I was wondering the same thing. Pluses and minuses...

Rodents represent readily available models that can be used for a deeper understanding of basic biological mechanisms and for proof of concept for preclinical research hypotheses. However, attempts at direct clinical translation to humans have proven problematic or even impossible to date, principally due to issues of scaling and complexity.

https://clinmedjournals.org/articles/ijscrt/international-jo...

[AnthonBerg]

If there is a difference, we’ll learn what the difference is, and if there’s another one after that the same, and so on.

[hungryforcodes]

Right, exactly! You expressed it much better than I did. :)

[Chris2048]

Yes, but publication of hopeful articles should be near the end, not the start.