There was a recent article in Science News [1] about the challenge of applying mouse studies to humans, followed by the NY Times slightly more exaggerated coverage [2]. Studies on non-humans for human issues can be misleading.
Agreed. They certainly can be misleading for those who expect them to translate over to humans without a hitch.
However, if one goes into trials on mice, dogs, and other animals with the understanding that you're comparing apples to oranges, there can be a lot gained.
This approach, for instance, is something completely different than I've ever seen WRT Type 1 diabetes. It's a 180-degree approach from islet cell transplants, semi-permeable protective membranes, and immuno-suppressive drugs. As a proof of concept, I think they can probably learn a lot from it - even if they can't simply copy it to humans exactly.
However, if one goes into trials on mice, dogs, and other animals with the understanding that you're comparing apples to oranges, there can be a lot gained.
This approach, for instance, is something completely different than I've ever seen WRT Type 1 diabetes. It's a 180-degree approach from islet cell transplants, semi-permeable protective membranes, and immuno-suppressive drugs. As a proof of concept, I think they can probably learn a lot from it - even if they can't simply copy it to humans exactly.