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.
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.
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?
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.