[kerowak]

Pointing out that biologists use animal models that don't map perfectly to our biology is a lazy criticism. It's not a good-faith way of engaging with research, and demonstrates ignorance to the purpose of modelling in any field.

[stuckinhell]

12 October 2023 - Reproducibility trial: 246 biologists get different results from same data sets https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03177-1

I think it's perfectly far to be very very critical of these paper especially because of the impact they can have on society, medicine, and legislation.

We should be very harsh and disciplined.

[freedomben]

GP isn't saying we shouldn't be critical, hard and disciplined. They are saying we shouldn't just lazily dismiss any results as "in rats."

I fully agree with your comment out of context, and I think it actually backs up GP's point about not lazily dismissing stuff as "in rats"

[stuckinhell]

It's not a lazy criticism, if the data is so variable when it comes to various conclusions of the same data set, imagine the difference when it goes from rats to humans!

[freedomben]

I would agree, it definitely isn't always a lazy criticism. But to be unlazy it should include something that expounds on why it might matter. When the entirety of the response to the study is "in rats" that doesn't seem helpful to me

[RcouF1uZ4gsC]

It is not a lazy criticism.

These animal studies are way too preliminary to waste time discussing by non-biologists. I think that the press popularizing these very preliminary studies as science actually serves to undermine the perception of science in the general population.

[pvg]

This info is conventionally added to HN titles since articles have the bad habit of omitting it so HN users often point it out. You can read it as equivalent to comments pointing out publication year so it can be added to a title.