Her: "I've always wanted to be a laboratory mouse!" Me: ........ Why the heck would you want that? There's a reason we don't test on humans, you know....
I read that a researcher working to cure Alzheimer's said we've cured it at least 30 times in mice, but haven't been able to get the treatments to work in people.
Jan Koci a lot of journalists will cite rodent studies as being completely airtight in their research and portray the results as viable solutions for human conditions.
This is just turning one misconception into another misconception! Of course lab mice aren't going to have the same responses as a human, but you need to understand the concept of a "model system". Each strain of mouse is so well known itself that we can use that knowledge to learn about how something else, like a drug, works. We then pair that research with work in several other models, such as human cell lines or flies, to see if our understanding matches what we know in those systems. No scientist expects mice to mirror humans perfectly, or even all that well. But the alternatives? Avoiding testing on humans, there's primate research, but that is extremely difficult to justify in the majority of cases, as many species are endangered and they are considered more sentient than mice (See NIH and ICUAC). And you mentioned that lab mice aren't covered by the AWA, but that's leaving out the key point that all institutions that use lab mice are governed by regulations that do include lab mice under AWA. There is an extremely stringent policy involving lab mice that must always be followed and every experiment must be extremely well justified. Any scientist who doesn't understand this wouldn't be anywhere near lab mice, as in this video. Make sure to research your videos before saying things that'll make the general public distrust science. *Look up the institutional ICUAC for more information.
All of this is true, and I agree with it, but thanks to capitalism and its pressures, institutional safeguards can be well...ignored for expediency, and what we do to mice is still horrific.
Bret Weinstein discussed the differences in telomeres and how the results of the experiments are now skewed due to the fact that we've been using the same strain of mice for so long that they've adapted. World leading geneticists recognize this so rather than popping off about a misconception, you are clearly the one who missed the point
Well, Adam is right there is no federal law covering mice and rats, there is the PHS policy on humane care and use of lab animals, which covers all vertebrates (including mice and rats). Come on Adam, I wish you mentioned this.
Oof well his team of researchers probably didn't see this but i think you can email them and in one of episodes he said that they strive for correctness so if they get it wrong i think you should/can email them
@tamil kpop fan because asking people to volunteer who are aware of risks would be an "ethical" solution, people have choice, and there are people out there who would be will to pioneer for a potential cure, vs mice who have no choice and one being kep alive to be experimented on, which isn't an ethical nor is it an effective method
@tamil kpop fan Any drug or trail that has never been done on a human is still technically untested, regardless if it was done on animals, because human and animal genetic makeup is vastly different which means the outcomes and effects can be vastly and completely different. thats the key things that needs to be understood. what is successful in a rodent test fails 90% of the time in a human trial, animal tests are a waste of time money and resources. and when it comes to issues like cancer, many still take experimental treatments, it is irresponsibility to use methods that are not only ethically wrong, but are also fiscally wasteful, when they can use other methods for experiments. that could yield better results and a faster pace to better treatment options and cure.
you realized there are more that just human and animals testing available as options right? the fact hat you think an archaic way to continue to do research and gain data on using an animal model that is 904 faulty in results and can have complete oppisite results from a cure to death is sad. human trials would consist of micro doses, for one, and even then we have the technology to grow functional working miniature organs from cultured working cells that would yeaid better results and that could be created to what ever ailemtn we needs to test for. not to mention the use of algorithm data and the effects of drugs on human biology. www.livescience.com/65401-animal-testing-alternatives.html testing against the will of any living creature will never be "ethical" and can never be justified to continue to practice when the results yield nothing but a was of time and money when we have better options that can utilized presently.
@tamil kpop fan well said! It's sad because it seems like only people that work in the animal research field are aware of all the laws and regulations involved in animal testing. Those outside of the field have a very skewed perspective of what animal testing really involves.
Mice are used as a step to clinical trials; they are never the only evidence for drug efficacy. While scientists can do research on human cancers and other conditions through immortalized cell lines and clinical samples, scientists must use models of a complete body to analyze the responses of all types of cells together. Ethically, this is best done in an animal model that resembles humans while minimizing harm to those animals. Those two variables are maximized (for most research) in mice.
rozynmike to a great extent it is necessary. I work in biomedical research and mice are a great first step in trials because they’re cheap. No scientist ever enjoyed the sacrifice of lab mice, but without them our medicine would still be in the shitter.
@@henvdemon Apart from ethical problems, humans vary too greatly from eachother based on genome. You can get mice and rats which are exact clones from eachother in order to fulfill the n amount you need to prove your hypothesis
The only "negative" side to mice actually mentioned in this video is that results on mice don't always translate to humans, which isn't that bad even. Every other point in this video is a positive. They are cheap, so the failed trials cost less than failed human trials. The faster metabolism and shorter lifespan lets us perform things like experiments over a lifetime or multigenerational studies, and the size difference enables the use of lower quantities of drugs.
I think I get your point, though I believe the thesis was more centered around the notion that early stage clinical trials are in a rather undeveloped state as of now due to various reasons mostly centered around cost. I could be off the mark here, but they were pointing out that mice simply aren't the most efficient or even potentially ethical way to get results for pertinent information and studies. Afterall, why not divert resources (money and time) towards finding ways to isolate cancer cells in humans, rather than get rather flimsy results from mice. There isn't even really any malice ultimately, it's all just a commentary on how financial restrictions have created a less than ideal situation (not outright useless, but far from the best situation if you catch me). Anyways, hope you are fine 2 years later, and go in good health.
@@leolong2984 Therein lies the question. How are you going to find ways to isolate cancer cells in humans? Method A could work. Or break up tumors and cause a full body cancer. So how do you test that?
@@MikelSyn I wish I had that answer, unfortunately I am not a scientist. Best I can tell there is no simple answer, and the field is still burgeoning as to how we might go about studying cancer cells in humans without necessarily affecting the host. Is that a copout response? Yes lol but I see no harm in at lest doing research on how to more humanely go about performing studies you know?
Nazi Scientists did it under Hitler. This video has so many Naïve misconceptions about animal model testing and that FDA usually requires other animal models to be tested and safety trials performed in other countries before trials begin in the US. Medical devices and drugs that do not have enough animal model testing can result in problems
I can't tell you how funny it was watching the researcher talk about mice ineffectiveness in studies and then how she talked about putting the card in a bike spoke 😂 Oh my God and they did it at 4:20 exactly.
Scientists use them all the time. Other cell lines too. Also new cell lines are created from patient human tumors all the time. After testing on those cell lines, research requires testing in a full body, to see interactions with other organs, how long the drug stays in the body, toxicity etc. And often the cell line results are not the same in the full body, just like mice results are not the same as human results. But testing on cells in the lab is indeed the first step.
The easiest comparison with testing on cell cultures vs testing in a living model is that bleach, fire, acid, will kill cell cultures, but you wouldn't put them on a patient.
The problem is that there is no beter alternative to testing on rodents that isn't very expensive or dangerous to humans. (As is said in the video). So, for now, it is the best option. I think saying that people in general believe that testing in rodents is similar to testing in humans is sort of correct (don't know the exact numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong), but suggesting that scientists don't know is nonsense. Of course scientists know this and the differences between rodents and humans are accounted for when decideing the dose for human subjects (as much as possible, some things stay uncertain). A good example of this is by using a formula to adapt the dose for the differences in weight and metabolic speed for the different species.
I will point out one blaring problem. What's the solution to mouse research? Testing on other animals? Human experimentation? Stopping medical research all together? The history of medical research is complex and a lot of it is trial by error. Those "failed" experiments on mice were not all failures by any stretch of the imagination. So much has been learned from these failures, and by experimenting on mice, humans in dire medical circumstances have been given the BEST experimental treatments clinically available using animal testing. Animal testing is a cornerstone of biomedical research because these animals protect humans from receiving dangerous or ineffective treatments. Animal experiments were responsible for birth control, chemotherapy, antibiotics, and countless other biomedical breakthroughs that have significantly improved human lives. You could keep trying leeches, blood letting, and blowing smoke up your ass. If you eat animals, try not to be so judgmental when scientists kill them curing disease instead of just, you know, dinner.
The biggest issue with this video is just the tone that it issues which seems like it implies something not quite right as you've pointed out a couple times.
Just throwing this out there. If almost all experiments are done with lab mice, any successful experiment will automatically involve mice. It may works sometimes but the question remains how optimal lab mice are for studying human diseases.
Correct he wanted a unified country, not to end slavery. He only brought that in at the very end because most recruits wanted to fight for freedom, and when they learned that they weren't fighting for freedom they left. So Lincoln used it as a moral rallying point for the recruits Edit also to make it look like "I'm right because I'm fighting for freedom so I'm right your wrong"
@@Geoyytr you should note that while he was originally not particularly an abolitionist, his meetings with fredrick douglas did expand his knowledge of the horrific conditions slaves experienced in the south, and he was far more interested in the abolition of slavery as he knew more about it. But initially the south was fighting to preserve slavery, and the north was initially fighting to preserve the united states.
I used to work at a place that raised a huge number of mice for use in research. It was the most grossly mismanaged workplace I have ever seen. I sometimes felt like I had taken a wrong turn on the way to work and ended up in the Twilight Zone.
Maybe so though do you not ever question whether or not we could potentially be rejecting viable candidates due to false negatives in mouse testing? Don't get me wrong I understand that you can't exactly do all the types of research animal models are used for on humans, genetic research for example is pretty much out of the question as the modification needs to be done before the subject is even a fetus let alone capable of informed consent. I just question whether it's the best way to test things like drugs and accept the risk of rejecting useful drug candidates due to an almost irrational squeamishness towards allowing well informed consenting human adults of sound mind to volunteer for such testing regardless whether or not the drugs work in another species that isn't even the target species. Certainly there are very real risks in doing that but there are also risks in rejecting candidate drugs that could help millions of people because they fail to work when tested on the wrong model species.
As someone who works in the region and have handled mice, this video isn't exactly accurate, it certainly feels like someone who haven't done research before trying to point fingers at things they don't understand. Mice are cheap and can be used to test a variety of drugs. For example, toxicity, while human toxicity tolerance and mice toxicity tolerance is not the same, but since both mice and human and mice are mammals and share a good amount of similarities, what is toxic to mice is almost always toxic to human. Say we have an experimental drug that may be potentially toxic to human, we wouldn't want to go test it on a human outright since we wouldn't want to kill him/her, we would go test it on a mice first to see if there are any side effects. Sure, mice experiments are not exactly the same compared to humans, but tell me where I can get almost an infinite amount of humans to do experiments on new drugs or biological theories without weighing on my conscience. You want science without morality? Check out Unit 731 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731). Also, there is no "effectiveness" when it comes to research (YOU CANT RUSH SCIENCE). I can test 1000 different ways and none of them are correct and I can test 1 single way and it just works. Scientific research isn't based on "how efficient you can pump out research papers" it is about the scientific method. For those who forgot what they learned in high school, it is observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> conclusion/observation and the cycle goes on. Science is trial and error, try something, if it is wrong, figure out why and try to avoid making that mistake and try again, if something else goes wrong, figure out why and try avoiding making that mistake. When I start a research, I can't tell you I will be done in a certain amount of time or with a certain amount of money. I can only apply for funds and spend the fund as effectively as I can until you decide to stop giving me funding because the results doesn't warrant the funding or because I finished. For those think scientists are completely machines and have no remorse killing those mice, we aren't. We try to be as humane as possible when it comes to test subjects, even when it comes to animals such as mice, spiders (which a lot of people hate) and jellyfish (I'm putting this out just because I dealt with them in labs before). There are much worse problems in scientific research that needs to be fixed, but this certainly isn't one of them.
There's a lot of cellular testing as well. In fact, cellular testing is usually the first step for anti-cancer drug development, followed with animal models (or sometimes yeast as it is also extremely inexpensive), then human trials.
Dr. Raza: "Thanks for keeping me in mint condition" Also Dr. Raza: "If you put me in your bike spoke it will sound like a motorcycle. Brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb!"
*mom walks in* mom: you still watch Johnny test? Me: No I'm watching Adam ruins everything and it's not always family friendly Mom: *whispers* Johnny test...
2:44 Several years ago scientists created a glow-in-the dark rabbit. They produce similar-sized litters but they ain't rodents. You can have genetically modified pets, I kid you not. Mutant rabbits aren't on the list yet.
@@lolz3577 Human cells are always used before in vivo studies. But isolated human cells are greatly limited, you cannot study the whole body reactions and most immortalized cell lines are cancerous cells. This is why in vivo studies are very important, we cannot rely on in vitro alone.
The doctor recommends using human cancer cells if studying cancer: for at least a few types of cancer, if not more, it is definitely possible to culture such cells in a lab. I'm not as sure that is possible for other illnesses, but for some cancers they grow fine in a dish if taken care of, possibly partly due to cancers being growing masses of cells that are not dying in the body. It sounds like medical research needs to find some better way than using mice
Sure, but before mouse testing, there's testing on cancer cells- which is great, but doesn't accurately replicate the conditions inside a live organism. It's also possible that mice are a "fail-early" model- i.e. if we don't see any success with a trial in mice, it's not a huge stretch to say it likely won't be successful in humans- but at least we tried on mice first, since they're cheaper, instead of humans, where now a bunch of money has been wasted. Also the writing in the description implies that mouse studies could apply to humans 79% of the time, so that seems like a big error lol
I actually listened to Dr Azra Raza´s podcast with Adam. I don't really agree with them. Even if you had a human trial method as safe as a lab mice trials, no regulatory entity would permit it to take place before animal testing, simply because intuitively it is better to amass the most amount of evidence for a treatment's safety before taking it to humans. If you disagree with that you are no longer discussing science, but regulation (this is not to say that regulatory entities don't take science into account, it's just that they take other things into account too). I also found interesting that Dr Raza spoke about her work on human tissue, but failed to mention one of the most important fields on oncology today: inmunology. Our inmune systems are some of the best, if not the best defense we have against cancer. It is the very system that naturally protects us against it. It's not perfect, but the most prominent findings in cancer treatment in the last like 20 years, are about knowledge and manipulation of the inmune system. Findings that are being tested and funded by millions of dollars, And have been quite successful. It is also worth mentioning that the inmune systems of human and lab mice are almost identical. Finally, I can relate with Dr Raza's dissapointment with the lack of progress of the farmaceutical industry today, but said sluggishness is due to safety concerns. It's better to create drugs that are similar to the ones already on market, because that way you get to compete. Also, because if you create something new and unheard of, and have nothing to compare it with, you have to prove its safety. That requieres a lot of time, a lot of regulation, and a lot of money. And that's if they even grant you the opportunity. I've heard this podcast a long time ago now. I want someone to tell me that Dr Raza at least once mentioned inmunology.
Since the TeGenero case (what he described, the 2006 fail in the clinical studies), there were some new regulations for medical testing installed in Europe. For example, you can only test substances of which you have studied the mechanism in the body and you have to show that the difference between an animal and a human does not affect this mechanism much. For example you might have to take a beagle instead of a chimpanzee in the second part of animal testing (which, in Europe, is done on rodents first but has to be done in larger mammals before getting into clinical studies)
@@shuepsx652 It misleads the audience to think that there are somehow better options which as of now... there are not. It also reflects researchers themselves as completely ignorant of the drawbacks of mouse studies... which is obviously false.
@@laurab1105 the entire episode goes more in depth, I don't understand where do you get that in these minutes he leads to think that there are better options, besides the option of researching for better options. He talks about the mayority of people not knowing the drawbacks, not the scientists. He obviously used a scientist character that wasn't aware of it for the purposes of the script, but there is also a real scientist that does know about it. So again, I don't know why you focus only on the character instead of the real person to reach the conclusion that he reflects scientists as if they were unaware of it.
This is so dumb. Literally no scientist thinks testing on mice is "practically like testing on humans." Otherwise you wouldn't need to do bloody clinical trials if what worked in mice worked on man. Mice studies are good because you can test the biological variables within a pathway (which 97% of the time is identical to the human pathway (i.e. in terms of the genes activated upon stimulation) - which is largely used to demonstrate cause and effect. Yes that 3% difference means if you change the pathway in the entire organism, the results between men and mice will probably vary *such as with the drug you mentioned- yes an extreme example, 99% of the time it doesn't go that way (the drug caused a cytokine storm in human subjects but not the mice, and because of the subtle differences between men and mice immunity, there is no way anyone could have forseen such a horrific side-effect)*- but this isn't something that escapes scientists. A good example of this is how the Nazis were the first to demonstrate that smoking caused cancer. They used mice, and we replicated that finding in the west- lo and behold; smoking causes cancer in humans too! You cannot discount all the good mice testing has done, it far far outweighs the negatives- and atleast from this clip, it seems you don't represent the issue fairly.
This needs to be pinned. Good reference to the study btw (link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/) There are way too many people who aren't educated and honestly no one can blame them. They just watch RUclips videos and assume facts are correct based on first exposure. Thanks for pointing out the issues. I might also add that preclinical animal testing allowed drugs to be filtered so extremely lethal drugs would not reach clinical trials before failing.
MrZanvine Wait a minute... So you're saying that when you fill their cage with cigarette smoke containing 100s of substances already known to be harmful, that it is bad for them? I could have actually done that exact same study with a potted plant and it'd have the same results. They learned nothing and it doesn't make using mice more credible especially if it were done by the same people who thought carrots made your eyesight better.
I'm a Research Scientist at a Biotech company in husbandry and have been for 4 years. I have some notes on this video. Balbc mice aren't used that often. Black six are more commen. Currently SCID mice are used for cancer trials since they can be given human cancer. So human cancer is being studied And lastly you cannot have a drug go to human trial with only mouse studies in the us, even with orphan diseases you can only go to clinical trial with two different animal studies, normally it takes three or more animal studies plus the in vitro studies (done on the target cells).
I'm glad so many comments can spot the many inaccuracies of this video. But there's still one misconception that I'd like to point out: THERE IS NO "HUMAN" OR "RAT" CANCER. Cancer is just uncontrolled cell growth, and the development depends on the type of cell being affected. That way, different kinds of cancer within the same person is as different as it is similar to cancer in rats. Cancer research in rats is more focused in creating survival chance charts for specific drug treatment that can be applied to humans. The effect of certain drugs tend to be the same in rats and in humans, because we share most of the same cell receptors those drugs act on (an important reason why rats are used in lab research). The real issue now, and the topic this video should had been referencing, is pharmaceutical confabulation, overly priced drugs that don't actually differ from the generic version, and the miracle drugs sham
I thing that's a very fragile argument. Why the fact that mice are cheap doesn't count as an affectivity factor? Even if only 20% of the results found in mice are aplicable in humans, how do we know that the added burden of a more expensive alternive with a higher aplicability on humans porcentage would not make that alternative less effective em practice?
What are the 20% of cases that are applicable? Just stuff that studies the affects of things like what happens to living cells when you bombard them with exotic energies? Anatoli Bugorski I’m sure would have preferred that.
justin canu if something is reasonably safe on a mouse, there's a good chance it'll be reasonably safe for humans. I realize it showed one catastrophic example of when it doesn't work, but the devil is in the details. How many examples of that can you find? I'm willing to bet it's a fraction of a percent a year where people have serious adverse reactions to drugs already tested in mice. I'll also point out that, in the example given, researchers gave 1/500 of the mouse dose, probably because they knew there was the probability of something going wrong and wanted to minimize the chance, in the name of safety. Ever hear of the FDA? They will eat your company for breakfast if you're reckless with your experiments.
Locked behind steel cage Forced to take drugs we've made Cut them up just to show What we already know Before they die... Who will hear them cry Song Title: Ark of Suffering Thrash Metal Band: Tourniquet This is great music for headbangers who enjoy thinking.
Oh no. They are still coming up with drugs and ways to help fighting against cancer. But since they can't use humans as test subjects until they make extensive tests on rodents their progress is not as streamlined as it appears to be.
GUYS WATCH THE FULL EPISODE!! these clips only show part of the issues they represent. The episode will usually provide solutions and substitute to these problems by the end. Adam ruins everything isn't just about pointing out a problem. It's about finding solutions too
Lau Darren the chance is you already do it.. You see, what does the pigs and cows eat? Well yes grass but also lining (animal feed) that contains antibiotics etc. Or they made the animal feed out of other animals like cows and sheep. That's how UK had crazy cow desise..
Clickpodcast Silvereagle45 Yes, although I said you can eat them jokingly and said that thing above I meant that we should test it on pigs because same size as us plus so similar than rats. OFC we shouldn't eat them!
I think that we should experiment on prison population, there are so many people who’s life can be used for a better purpose that they have ever archived themselves.
Mice are generally less expensive than rats, both on original purchase and housing. They're often easier to handle (more docile) than rats, depending on the strain of each. In some cases, reagents such as specific antibodies are more easily available for mice (this is a bit of a circular issue - if mice are more widely used, then more people will make mouse-specific reagents, which in turn makes mice more popular). There are more strains of mice available, and more knockout and transgenic mice. Constructing new knockouts and transgenics is still easier in mice than in rats. Again, there is a little bit of a circular component here - because more people use mice, more people refine and improve mouse genetic techniques. All these reasons (but perhaps especially the cost) mean that mice are the first choice for generic lab studies. However, there are specific fields in which, for one reason or another, rats are more widely used. That may be for historical reasons - if the early work was all done with rats, then you may need to validate your own system in rats too - or there may be biological reasons. For example, there may be a strain of rats that develops the disease of interest, or you may need the larger size to se what you're doing, or something like that. Mice and rats together make up the vast majority of lab vertebrate animals, and mice are maybe twice as commonly use as rats.
Nobody in science really says that a rodent is a perfect analog for a human it is an analog for the similarity of being a mammal. It is cheaper to use mice than to go right to pigs, these are far closer to humans but also more expensive and harder to work with so, before you trial on pigs you trial on mice. Mice trials is just one of many research steps for saving money over using perfect models that are extremly expensive.
What he fails to point out is that 20% is a great success rate in these studies and he doesn't offer any alternative because one does not exist. This video is mostly click-bait and misdirection. TL;DR: The problem with lab mice is we have no alternatives, why does this video exist again? oh yeah click-bait and views.
hes not wrong abt the no alternatives part, but even this vid admits there are not many options in the first place lel, thats why ppl are stuck to experimenting on mice. I think he didnt watch this carefully
If they allowed scientists to experiment in criminals imagine how much more efficient medical science would be. And I don’t mean all criminals just the worse of the worse.
This video is "ruining" a straw man. Whoever "researched" for this episode clearly don't understand how scientific research is done and why scientists need animal research before jumping to human trials.
Parody Version: Winnie: "But, Adam, what we are doing here?" Adam: "Same thing we do every night, Winnie. Ruining a common misconception!" Singers: 🎶The Winnie, the Winnie and the Adam, Adam, Adam, Adam, Adam🎶 Original: Pinky: "But, Brain, what are we doing to tomorrow night?" Brain: "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!" Singers: 🎶The Pinky, the Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain🎶
Eh, kind of. Most clinical trials have the goal of proving efficacy and/or safety. Most mouse trials are basic science, where the goal is to understand biology on a greater level, which can lead to better treatments. We wouldn't have monoclonal antibody drugs like Rituximab (a major anti-autoimmune drug) if we didn't take the time to understand inflammation as a biological pathway. Mice can be a good place to start on that.
I study at the Royal Veterinary College in London, and we barely hear about mice in testing anymore. The big ones we use are Zebrafish and Fruit Flies. I imagine they aren't much better but they're popular for similar reasons; cheap and easy to genetically modify.
This is bias. Incredible research has been done on mice. I literally don't have the time to correct the massive inaccuracies in this video. Adam, if we ever meet, or if you see this comment. Feel free to find me using the internet, it's easy. Message me, and I WILL spend the time correcting this piece for you sentence by sentence. It's basically garbage.
Matthew Cecil Pointing out the flaws in this method of testing doesn't mean that great discoveries can't be made with it. He's just addressing the common misconception that a mouse is a perfect analogue for humans, which it isn't.
its bad waste of huge money ! waste of research time ! waste of effort ! and like said this has caused many cases of harm to humans when it reached human use like much better for science to stop testing on animals .... but the bureaucracy is preventing that - and there is no public pressure to change that cause most of the public is ignorant about this issue and think animal testing is needed which it isnt
LOL okay. Next time there's a new untested, unknown drug, we'll ask you to try it out first to see if it's lethal or not. If it is, then too bad you're dead. Wouldn't you rather have an animal die from that drug or you? Hmm? I don't see you volunteering to die for medicine. Perhaps you should stop taking for granted the fact that we saved billions of human lives by sacrificing billions of animals in their place. The only other option to animal testing is human testing. Would you rather die, or let a couple of lab mice die for you? Exactly.
You wrote a lie and build a theory about that lie : "we most dance 1 hour for a great pink dragon that lives underground and sacrifice 4 dogs and throw them alive into a fire in order to do it correctly or do you prefer to burn yourself ? Exactly. its either we sacrifice this dogs or you or another human !!" ................. when in reality there is no need for anyone to die for that pink dragon and the only reason you are pushing for someone to be harmed is out of ignorance again : "the public is ignorant about this issue and think animal testing is needed which it isnt" im not going to keep replying cause i cant teach this entire complicated subject in a youtube comment - but if you read about this you can see how animal testing has harmed the advancement of science and medicine and even if you dont care about animals at all you still should be against testing on animals cause it harms humans .... but again not something i can explain in a youtube comment so please read about it - this is my last comment here
dewsdew Excuse me? Testing is not necessary? Have you DONE clinical research? Have you seen how academia is conducted? Have you even seen the LAW?!? The FDA will literally NOT approve a drug unless it has gone through 3 phases of testing, one of which involves animals, and another which involves volunteer patients. The animals are tested first so the patients aren't subjected to high risk. It is the LAW. It's not a matter of whether animal testing is needed anymore. It's so blatantly obvious that the FDA requires layers of living animal tests that must be performed before a drug even goes near a live human. We try to be humane. There are regulations regarding animal testing and what can a researcher can and cannot do. But, animal testing as a whole is 100% necessary for any drug to enter the mainstream. Perhaps that will change if we improve our technology to simulate living physiology, but that's not in another century.
That's called torture, and that's illegal (for humans) in conventional international law since 1984. Those who oppose animal testing are generally those in the general public, with a limited knowledge of how drug testing works. We kill animals to try to find out what amount of the chemical (per kg of body mass) WON'T kill a human, which in turn gives us information about its side effects and toxicity levels. Do all the animal rights activists think we are some sort of barbaric torturer? We are literally trying to save human lives here. I guess some people are just opposed to that.
How do you explain all of the law firm commercials seeking victims of drug companies to join in lawsuits against those drug companies.Would the FDA have approved animal-tested drugs that produced the monstrous side-effects the drugs manifest in humans? Are the FDA beaureaucrats corrupt?
I've wondered... ok, so the law prohibits *giving* cruel and unusual punishment, but what if death row inmates were given the option to volunteer? Specifically, for medical testing and the like (the issues about innocent people being sentenced to life/execution aside): if there's a chance of the given example of massive organ failure; that cockblocks some wannabe Federalist judge from getting his nut off on executing someone on his orders, but also gives valuable medical data that can save lives. You could offer things like to have any resulting treatments to be named after the prisoner, or named in the research paper; be immortalized in the annals of science, something like that. And on the crazier side: not one sociopath ever wanted to be thrown into a volcano? Sacrificed to Pele?
Well, with cancer and the lot, you have to have cancer first. In mice, the mice are genetically engineered to develop cancer, in most cases, so that drugs can be tested on them and human trials are done on volunteers with cancer. It would be hard to find a death row inmate with cancer and want to volunteer for the betterment of the world. Furthermore, the death row itself is rare in the modern world, America is the only first world country that still uses a system like that and it is already facing pressures from human rights organizations. If they were to start experimenting on prisoners, everything would get worse. Not to mention the fact that, by creating a system where death row inmates are substituted for volunteers in possibly dangerous science experiments, there would not be enough inmates to meet demands for research. This might cause a very tragic shift where the number of people ruled to be killed would increase for capitalistic profit and that's just sad.
Her: "I've always wanted to be a laboratory mouse!"
Me: ........ Why the heck would you want that? There's a reason we don't test on humans, you know....
dragongirl7978 ACTUALLY......we do. its just a lot more expensive and even when companies do test on humans, they still have to test on animals first.
@@mayganphynix8267 UM ACTUALLY your right
Maybe she's a masochist? But I will admit she is cute as a mouse.
We should test on humans though
Okay everyone, I know we test on humans and should test on humans, I meant *initially* geez. 🙄
I read that a researcher working to cure Alzheimer's said we've cured it at least 30 times in mice, but haven't been able to get the treatments to work in people.
Dan R and in the video said almost the same thing
Dan R actually test on volunteers
Oh wow it’s almost as if they’re different species, eh Science?
Dumpy Frog So you would be willing to you would be willing to take medicine that you have no idea how it would effect you.
Iron Dolphin that’s what we’re already doing, we’re just giving it to a different animal first.
What idiot ever thought that "testing on rodents is practically the same as doing actual human trials"? I will bet that no scientist ever.
Jan Koci a lot of journalists will cite rodent studies as being completely airtight in their research and portray the results as viable solutions for human conditions.
so as i said - no scientist. ever.
Scientists need funding and resources from non scientist
I was about to comment the same thing!
+Jan Koci the show didn't say scientists thought that. The """scientist""" is a teenage girl
This is just turning one misconception into another misconception! Of course lab mice aren't going to have the same responses as a human, but you need to understand the concept of a "model system". Each strain of mouse is so well known itself that we can use that knowledge to learn about how something else, like a drug, works. We then pair that research with work in several other models, such as human cell lines or flies, to see if our understanding matches what we know in those systems. No scientist expects mice to mirror humans perfectly, or even all that well. But the alternatives? Avoiding testing on humans, there's primate research, but that is extremely difficult to justify in the majority of cases, as many species are endangered and they are considered more sentient than mice (See NIH and ICUAC). And you mentioned that lab mice aren't covered by the AWA, but that's leaving out the key point that all institutions that use lab mice are governed by regulations that do include lab mice under AWA. There is an extremely stringent policy involving lab mice that must always be followed and every experiment must be extremely well justified. Any scientist who doesn't understand this wouldn't be anywhere near lab mice, as in this video. Make sure to research your videos before saying things that'll make the general public distrust science. *Look up the institutional ICUAC for more information.
All of this is true, and I agree with it, but thanks to capitalism and its pressures, institutional safeguards can be well...ignored for expediency, and what we do to mice is still horrific.
Adam is always known to use a strawman arguments. Glad you pointed that out here
Bret Weinstein discussed the differences in telomeres and how the results of the experiments are now skewed due to the fact that we've been using the same strain of mice for so long that they've adapted. World leading geneticists recognize this so rather than popping off about a misconception, you are clearly the one who missed the point
So basically you test on animals for no valid reason
I like how you basically just admit this is all not necessary to do yet still justify it
Well, Adam is right there is no federal law covering mice and rats, there is the PHS policy on humane care and use of lab animals, which covers all vertebrates (including mice and rats). Come on Adam, I wish you mentioned this.
Oof well his team of researchers probably didn't see this but i think you can email them and in one of episodes he said that they strive for correctness so if they get it wrong i think you should/can email them
How ?
@@vellss3524 should be in the description but I don't think they have it there
As a Biomedical researcher, I deal with IACUC all the time, and they are super strict.. it’s just negligence
But real question what dose that really mean what protections dose it afford the mice
Am I the only one who want's these Science Hero cards?
All I need is the Bill Nye holo to complete my collection, but I have a feeling that's just a myth.
falenangel no and u spelt fallen wrong u kiddo
www.kickstarter.com/projects/hologrin/stem-epic-heroes
en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/falen
falenangel I thought I was the only one...
*"ACTUALLY, THEY'RE NOT"*
- "LITERALLY" Adam
I see what you did there. Pinky and the Brain
lol thinking the same thing
nice catch, wanted to see if anyone else caught on.
She should have said narf at least once.
Lol
Literally everybody sees it... What a stupid comment.
“What are we going to do today, Brain?”
“The same thing we do every night, Pinky-try to take over the WORLD!!!!”
This video forgot to mention that it's the only "ethical" way to do so. Human experimenting is illegal in almost every country.
*US anthem starts to play*
@tamil kpop fan because asking people to volunteer who are aware of risks would be an "ethical" solution, people have choice, and there are people out there who would be will to pioneer for a potential cure, vs mice who have no choice and one being kep alive to be experimented on, which isn't an ethical nor is it an effective method
@tamil kpop fan Any drug or trail that has never been done on a human is still technically untested, regardless if it was done on animals, because human and animal genetic makeup is vastly different which means the outcomes and effects can be vastly and completely different. thats the key things that needs to be understood. what is successful in a rodent test fails 90% of the time in a human trial, animal tests are a waste of time money and resources. and when it comes to issues like cancer, many still take experimental treatments,
it is irresponsibility to use methods that are not only ethically wrong, but are also fiscally wasteful, when they can use other methods for experiments. that could yield better results and a faster pace to better treatment options and cure.
you realized there are more that just human and animals testing available as options right? the fact hat you think an archaic way to continue to do research and gain data on using an animal model that is 904 faulty in results and can have complete oppisite results from a cure to death is sad.
human trials would consist of micro doses, for one, and even then we have the technology to grow functional working miniature organs from cultured working cells that would yeaid better results and that could be created to what ever ailemtn we needs to test for. not to mention the use of algorithm data and the effects of drugs on human biology. www.livescience.com/65401-animal-testing-alternatives.html
testing against the will of any living creature will never be "ethical" and can never be justified to continue to practice when the results yield nothing but a was of time and money when we have better options that can utilized presently.
@tamil kpop fan well said! It's sad because it seems like only people that work in the animal research field are aware of all the laws and regulations involved in animal testing. Those outside of the field have a very skewed perspective of what animal testing really involves.
Mice are used as a step to clinical trials; they are never the only evidence for drug efficacy. While scientists can do research on human cancers and other conditions through immortalized cell lines and clinical samples, scientists must use models of a complete body to analyze the responses of all types of cells together. Ethically, this is best done in an animal model that resembles humans while minimizing harm to those animals. Those two variables are maximized (for most research) in mice.
Testing on animals is cruel and unnecessary.
You forgot lab-on-a-chip sets
rozynmike to a great extent it is necessary.
I work in biomedical research and mice are a great first step in trials because they’re cheap.
No scientist ever enjoyed the sacrifice of lab mice, but without them our medicine would still be in the shitter.
@@danb400 use inmates that are on death row then. Simple.
@@henvdemon Apart from ethical problems, humans vary too greatly from eachother based on genome. You can get mice and rats which are exact clones from eachother in order to fulfill the n amount you need to prove your hypothesis
I love how this offers no actual solution. Considering human trials would cause public outcry faster than the idea could be considered.
4:10 Adam and his friends' faces when the mouse squeaks is just too darn funny.
The only "negative" side to mice actually mentioned in this video is that results on mice don't always translate to humans, which isn't that bad even. Every other point in this video is a positive. They are cheap, so the failed trials cost less than failed human trials. The faster metabolism and shorter lifespan lets us perform things like experiments over a lifetime or multigenerational studies, and the size difference enables the use of lower quantities of drugs.
I think I get your point, though I believe the thesis was more centered around the notion that early stage clinical trials are in a rather undeveloped state as of now due to various reasons mostly centered around cost. I could be off the mark here, but they were pointing out that mice simply aren't the most efficient or even potentially ethical way to get results for pertinent information and studies. Afterall, why not divert resources (money and time) towards finding ways to isolate cancer cells in humans, rather than get rather flimsy results from mice. There isn't even really any malice ultimately, it's all just a commentary on how financial restrictions have created a less than ideal situation (not outright useless, but far from the best situation if you catch me). Anyways, hope you are fine 2 years later, and go in good health.
@@leolong2984 Therein lies the question. How are you going to find ways to isolate cancer cells in humans? Method A could work. Or break up tumors and cause a full body cancer. So how do you test that?
@@MikelSyn I wish I had that answer, unfortunately I am not a scientist. Best I can tell there is no simple answer, and the field is still burgeoning as to how we might go about studying cancer cells in humans without necessarily affecting the host. Is that a copout response? Yes lol but I see no harm in at lest doing research on how to more humanely go about performing studies you know?
So you admit it's stupid to test on animals but you still try and justify it
Literally no one:
Adam: *THAT’S WHERE YOU’RE WRONG*
yes
Exactly. I mean does anybody (especially in a lab) not know about the limitations of the mice testing?
You're right Adam! So our solution should be to test on humans for more accurate results, why hasn't anyone else thought of this
That'd actually be good-- we can test on pedos, rapists and abusers.
Nazi Scientists did it under Hitler.
This video has so many Naïve misconceptions about animal model testing and that FDA usually requires other animal models to be tested and safety trials performed in other countries before trials begin in the US. Medical devices and drugs that do not have enough animal model testing can result in problems
I can't tell you how funny it was watching the researcher talk about mice ineffectiveness in studies and then how she talked about putting the card in a bike spoke 😂
Oh my God and they did it at 4:20 exactly.
I don't understand.
What I find amusing is that she thanked her for keeping the card in mint condition then advised a course of action that would absolutely ruin it.
0:40 Adam Ruins "Pinky and The Brain" LOL
They're Pinky and the Brain..
Yes, Pinky and the Brain.
That time when Adam became a furry.
Sean Pizza
In Multiple episodes
;)
"Furry" is so politically-incorrect, the prefered term is "funny cartoon animal people."
REEE
haha you're right!
It's funny cause its tru
Just one question: What about the HeLa cells? We have an infinite amount of those, so why not use them?
Scientists use them all the time. Other cell lines too. Also new cell lines are created from patient human tumors all the time. After testing on those cell lines, research requires testing in a full body, to see interactions with other organs, how long the drug stays in the body, toxicity etc. And often the cell line results are not the same in the full body, just like mice results are not the same as human results. But testing on cells in the lab is indeed the first step.
those are cultured cells, not an actual organism. you can’t test anything on them: they have no brain, immune system, etc
@@jakejanuzelli1874 oh! Thanks for clarifying.
That's 2 questions
The easiest comparison with testing on cell cultures vs testing in a living model is that bleach, fire, acid, will kill cell cultures, but you wouldn't put them on a patient.
The problem is that there is no beter alternative to testing on rodents that isn't very expensive or dangerous to humans. (As is said in the video). So, for now, it is the best option. I think saying that people in general believe that testing in rodents is similar to testing in humans is sort of correct (don't know the exact numbers, please correct me if I'm wrong), but suggesting that scientists don't know is nonsense. Of course scientists know this and the differences between rodents and humans are accounted for when decideing the dose for human subjects (as much as possible, some things stay uncertain). A good example of this is by using a formula to adapt the dose for the differences in weight and metabolic speed for the different species.
If penicillin was tested on a guinea pig, it would never have been used in humans
Therapist: Animated Mice Adam is not real, it can’t hurt you
Animated Mice Adam:
I will point out one blaring problem. What's the solution to mouse research? Testing on other animals? Human experimentation? Stopping medical research all together? The history of medical research is complex and a lot of it is trial by error. Those "failed" experiments on mice were not all failures by any stretch of the imagination. So much has been learned from these failures, and by experimenting on mice, humans in dire medical circumstances have been given the BEST experimental treatments clinically available using animal testing. Animal testing is a cornerstone of biomedical research because these animals protect humans from receiving dangerous or ineffective treatments. Animal experiments were responsible for birth control, chemotherapy, antibiotics, and countless other biomedical breakthroughs that have significantly improved human lives. You could keep trying leeches, blood letting, and blowing smoke up your ass. If you eat animals, try not to be so judgmental when scientists kill them curing disease instead of just, you know, dinner.
He never said we gain nothing by testing on mice. He just says that it is the most effective method in terms of cost, legality and general ethics.
The biggest issue with this video is just the tone that it issues which seems like it implies something not quite right as you've pointed out a couple times.
Matthew Cecil well I read that stem cells could make a good substitute
Just throwing this out there. If almost all experiments are done with lab mice, any successful experiment will automatically involve mice. It may works sometimes but the question remains how optimal lab mice are for studying human diseases.
Yorick TheFang Good catch
Adam ruins the civil war
I read somewhere that about Lincoln didn't want to end slavery
Correct he wanted a unified country, not to end slavery. He only brought that in at the very end because most recruits wanted to fight for freedom, and when they learned that they weren't fighting for freedom they left. So Lincoln used it as a moral rallying point for the recruits
Edit also to make it look like "I'm right because I'm fighting for freedom so I'm right your wrong"
@@Geoyytr you should note that while he was originally not particularly an abolitionist, his meetings with fredrick douglas did expand his knowledge of the horrific conditions slaves experienced in the south, and he was far more interested in the abolition of slavery as he knew more about it. But initially the south was fighting to preserve slavery, and the north was initially fighting to preserve the united states.
@@ryanweible9090 my point exactly
@@ryanweible9090 thanks for clarifying the point for me
Lincoln was a politician, he had to "sell" emancipation on an unwilling public. So "I don't like it either but I have to" was a good shtick
I lost it when the lab mouse was cursing at the doctor!
I used to work at a place that raised a huge number of mice for use in research. It was the most grossly mismanaged workplace I have ever seen. I sometimes felt like I had taken a wrong turn on the way to work and ended up in the Twilight Zone.
Worked with lab mice for years doing cancer research. This is extremely biased and misrepresents just how useful mouse models can be.
Maybe so though do you not ever question whether or not we could potentially be rejecting viable candidates due to false negatives in mouse testing? Don't get me wrong I understand that you can't exactly do all the types of research animal models are used for on humans, genetic research for example is pretty much out of the question as the modification needs to be done before the subject is even a fetus let alone capable of informed consent. I just question whether it's the best way to test things like drugs and accept the risk of rejecting useful drug candidates due to an almost irrational squeamishness towards allowing well informed consenting human adults of sound mind to volunteer for such testing regardless whether or not the drugs work in another species that isn't even the target species. Certainly there are very real risks in doing that but there are also risks in rejecting candidate drugs that could help millions of people because they fail to work when tested on the wrong model species.
And you have an unbiased point of view if that's your line of work?
@@shuepsx652 No one has an unbiased viewpoint but this person at least has experience.
“80% of the time, it fails with humans.” Um yeah, Adam Conover, that’s how science works. Get used to it.
@@maxitaxi6484 hm, I think a rate of 20bperxent sounds pretty solid for something this complex
As someone who works in the region and have handled mice, this video isn't exactly accurate, it certainly feels like someone who haven't done research before trying to point fingers at things they don't understand.
Mice are cheap and can be used to test a variety of drugs. For example, toxicity, while human toxicity tolerance and mice toxicity tolerance is not the same, but since both mice and human and mice are mammals and share a good amount of similarities, what is toxic to mice is almost always toxic to human. Say we have an experimental drug that may be potentially toxic to human, we wouldn't want to go test it on a human outright since we wouldn't want to kill him/her, we would go test it on a mice first to see if there are any side effects. Sure, mice experiments are not exactly the same compared to humans, but tell me where I can get almost an infinite amount of humans to do experiments on new drugs or biological theories without weighing on my conscience. You want science without morality? Check out Unit 731 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731).
Also, there is no "effectiveness" when it comes to research (YOU CANT RUSH SCIENCE). I can test 1000 different ways and none of them are correct and I can test 1 single way and it just works. Scientific research isn't based on "how efficient you can pump out research papers" it is about the scientific method. For those who forgot what they learned in high school, it is observation -> hypothesis -> experiment -> conclusion/observation and the cycle goes on. Science is trial and error, try something, if it is wrong, figure out why and try to avoid making that mistake and try again, if something else goes wrong, figure out why and try avoiding making that mistake. When I start a research, I can't tell you I will be done in a certain amount of time or with a certain amount of money. I can only apply for funds and spend the fund as effectively as I can until you decide to stop giving me funding because the results doesn't warrant the funding or because I finished.
For those think scientists are completely machines and have no remorse killing those mice, we aren't. We try to be as humane as possible when it comes to test subjects, even when it comes to animals such as mice, spiders (which a lot of people hate) and jellyfish (I'm putting this out just because I dealt with them in labs before).
There are much worse problems in scientific research that needs to be fixed, but this certainly isn't one of them.
There's a lot of cellular testing as well. In fact, cellular testing is usually the first step for anti-cancer drug development, followed with animal models (or sometimes yeast as it is also extremely inexpensive), then human trials.
The amount of misrepresentation in this now has me questioning every other thing adam has "ruined"
You had the same reaction as me after watching his Columbus bit.
Dr. Raza: "Thanks for keeping me in mint condition"
Also Dr. Raza: "If you put me in your bike spoke it will sound like a motorcycle. Brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrb!"
*mom walks in* mom: you still watch Johnny test?
Me: No I'm watching Adam ruins everything and it's not always family friendly
Mom: *whispers* Johnny test...
Johnny Test was a fun cartoon
2:44 Several years ago scientists created a glow-in-the dark rabbit. They produce similar-sized litters but they ain't rodents. You can have genetically modified pets, I kid you not. Mutant rabbits aren't on the list yet.
Would you rather skip to human trials with no animal trials at all?
Benji B. Yes. Just test it on criminals who are sentenced to death or volunteers.
I would rather use small amounts of a human’s cells
@@lolz3577 Human cells are always used before in vivo studies. But isolated human cells are greatly limited, you cannot study the whole body reactions and most immortalized cell lines are cancerous cells. This is why in vivo studies are very important, we cannot rely on in vitro alone.
So, basically use D-class?
@@rihanm.sgoogleaccount4462 Nice reference
The doctor recommends using human cancer cells if studying cancer: for at least a few types of cancer, if not more, it is definitely possible to culture such cells in a lab. I'm not as sure that is possible for other illnesses, but for some cancers they grow fine in a dish if taken care of, possibly partly due to cancers being growing masses of cells that are not dying in the body.
It sounds like medical research needs to find some better way than using mice
Still, for solid tumor studies using those same cancer cells, mice are still our best bet.
Sure, but before mouse testing, there's testing on cancer cells- which is great, but doesn't accurately replicate the conditions inside a live organism. It's also possible that mice are a "fail-early" model- i.e. if we don't see any success with a trial in mice, it's not a huge stretch to say it likely won't be successful in humans- but at least we tried on mice first, since they're cheaper, instead of humans, where now a bunch of money has been wasted.
Also the writing in the description implies that mouse studies could apply to humans 79% of the time, so that seems like a big error lol
I actually listened to Dr Azra Raza´s podcast with Adam. I don't really agree with them. Even if you had a human trial method as safe as a lab mice trials, no regulatory entity would permit it to take place before animal testing, simply because intuitively it is better to amass the most amount of evidence for a treatment's safety before taking it to humans. If you disagree with that you are no longer discussing science, but regulation (this is not to say that regulatory entities don't take science into account, it's just that they take other things into account too).
I also found interesting that Dr Raza spoke about her work on human tissue, but failed to mention one of the most important fields on oncology today: inmunology. Our inmune systems are some of the best, if not the best defense we have against cancer. It is the very system that naturally protects us against it. It's not perfect, but the most prominent findings in cancer treatment in the last like 20 years, are about knowledge and manipulation of the inmune system. Findings that are being tested and funded by millions of dollars, And have been quite successful. It is also worth mentioning that the inmune systems of human and lab mice are almost identical.
Finally, I can relate with Dr Raza's dissapointment with the lack of progress of the farmaceutical industry today, but said sluggishness is due to safety concerns. It's better to create drugs that are similar to the ones already on market, because that way you get to compete. Also, because if you create something new and unheard of, and have nothing to compare it with, you have to prove its safety. That requieres a lot of time, a lot of regulation, and a lot of money. And that's if they even grant you the opportunity.
I've heard this podcast a long time ago now. I want someone to tell me that Dr Raza at least once mentioned inmunology.
Adam is The Brain confirmed.
This came out before the Animaniacs Reboot was even written, which means this kind of hits harder knowing Brain’s backstory (which is dark)
On the plus side, if you ever get mouse cancer, we got you covered.
Since the TeGenero case (what he described, the 2006 fail in the clinical studies), there were some new regulations for medical testing installed in Europe. For example, you can only test substances of which you have studied the mechanism in the body and you have to show that the difference between an animal and a human does not affect this mechanism much. For example you might have to take a beagle instead of a chimpanzee in the second part of animal testing (which, in Europe, is done on rodents first but has to be done in larger mammals before getting into clinical studies)
**Adam Doesn't Know Anything About Medical Research
Ian L Gacha Films! Nope. Didn’t miss anything. This video is misleading and a completely ignorant reflection of how research works.
@@laurab1105 It's a reflection of how experimentation with mice doesn't work as good as the general public thinks it does
@@shuepsx652 It misleads the audience to think that there are somehow better options which as of now... there are not. It also reflects researchers themselves as completely ignorant of the drawbacks of mouse studies... which is obviously false.
@@laurab1105 the entire episode goes more in depth, I don't understand where do you get that in these minutes he leads to think that there are better options, besides the option of researching for better options.
He talks about the mayority of people not knowing the drawbacks, not the scientists. He obviously used a scientist character that wasn't aware of it for the purposes of the script, but there is also a real scientist that does know about it. So again, I don't know why you focus only on the character instead of the real person to reach the conclusion that he reflects scientists as if they were unaware of it.
@@shuepsx652 Probably because of the comments.
This is so dumb.
Literally no scientist thinks testing on mice is "practically like testing on humans." Otherwise you wouldn't need to do bloody clinical trials if what worked in mice worked on man.
Mice studies are good because you can test the biological variables within a pathway (which 97% of the time is identical to the human pathway (i.e. in terms of the genes activated upon stimulation) - which is largely used to demonstrate cause and effect. Yes that 3% difference means if you change the pathway in the entire organism, the results between men and mice will probably vary *such as with the drug you mentioned- yes an extreme example, 99% of the time it doesn't go that way (the drug caused a cytokine storm in human subjects but not the mice, and because of the subtle differences between men and mice immunity, there is no way anyone could have forseen such a horrific side-effect)*- but this isn't something that escapes scientists.
A good example of this is how the Nazis were the first to demonstrate that smoking caused cancer. They used mice, and we replicated that finding in the west- lo and behold; smoking causes cancer in humans too!
You cannot discount all the good mice testing has done, it far far outweighs the negatives- and atleast from this clip, it seems you don't represent the issue fairly.
Dude, we don't care!
This needs to be pinned. Good reference to the study btw (link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2964774/)
There are way too many people who aren't educated and honestly no one can blame them. They just watch RUclips videos and assume facts are correct based on first exposure.
Thanks for pointing out the issues. I might also add that preclinical animal testing allowed drugs to be filtered so extremely lethal drugs would not reach clinical trials before failing.
Thank you for pointing this out. I applaud you as a researcher.
MrZanvine Wait a minute... So you're saying that when you fill their cage with cigarette smoke containing 100s of substances already known to be harmful, that it is bad for them? I could have actually done that exact same study with a potted plant and it'd have the same results. They learned nothing and it doesn't make using mice more credible especially if it were done by the same people who thought carrots made your eyesight better.
You would need to take a newborn and raise them with no memory of the outside world to make sure they are ready for testing
Moira from Overwatch is an interesting character as she wouldn't mind using humans as test subjects.
I'm a Research Scientist at a Biotech company in husbandry and have been for 4 years. I have some notes on this video.
Balbc mice aren't used that often. Black six are more commen.
Currently SCID mice are used for cancer trials since they can be given human cancer. So human cancer is being studied
And lastly you cannot have a drug go to human trial with only mouse studies in the us, even with orphan diseases you can only go to clinical trial with two different animal studies, normally it takes three or more animal studies plus the in vitro studies (done on the target cells).
2:59 they jumped from the cage to pipes outside the cage
That's illegal
I'm glad so many comments can spot the many inaccuracies of this video. But there's still one misconception that I'd like to point out: THERE IS NO "HUMAN" OR "RAT" CANCER. Cancer is just uncontrolled cell growth, and the development depends on the type of cell being affected. That way, different kinds of cancer within the same person is as different as it is similar to cancer in rats.
Cancer research in rats is more focused in creating survival chance charts for specific drug treatment that can be applied to humans. The effect of certain drugs tend to be the same in rats and in humans, because we share most of the same cell receptors those drugs act on (an important reason why rats are used in lab research).
The real issue now, and the topic this video should had been referencing, is pharmaceutical confabulation, overly priced drugs that don't actually differ from the generic version, and the miracle drugs sham
Adam low-key advocates for unethical, painful, and possibly painful experimentation to be done on humans for four and a half minutes
Painful, *and* possibly painful?? Holy hell!
I thing that's a very fragile argument. Why the fact that mice are cheap doesn't count as an affectivity factor? Even if only 20% of the results found in mice are aplicable in humans, how do we know that the added burden of a more expensive alternive with a higher aplicability on humans porcentage would not make that alternative less effective em practice?
I will always remember to never do drug trials. My uncle did one and it dissolved his hip bones.
Dissolved, really? What were they testing, HCl?
I wonder if Dr. Raza was happy to make that motorcycle noise in the end. Very fun and very humanizing.
Is it too difficult to link at least one SINGLE SOURCE?!
Schokoladenkeks you can find the sources on the website.
www.trutv.com/shows/adam-ruins-everything/blog/adams-sources/adam-ruins-science.html
And they appear on the screen, so you can know which statement came from each source cited in the website
2:09 man's became a gmod ragdoll
Was this reuploaded or what?
jojidubi4 no there are 2 channels adam does his vids
Pinky and the Brain reference at 0:44 I already expected it from seeing the thumbnail 😆
*their pinky and the brain pinky and the brain one is a genius the others insane*
There laboratory mice there genes have been sliced
What are the 20% of cases that are applicable? Just stuff that studies the affects of things like what happens to living cells when you bombard them with exotic energies? Anatoli Bugorski I’m sure would have preferred that.
I usually like this show. But, This is a misrepresentation with a narrow perspective.
vigneshcrichton as always?
Alright since no one seems to want to test you on that broad ass statement, how so?
justin canu if something is reasonably safe on a mouse, there's a good chance it'll be reasonably safe for humans. I realize it showed one catastrophic example of when it doesn't work, but the devil is in the details. How many examples of that can you find? I'm willing to bet it's a fraction of a percent a year where people have serious adverse reactions to drugs already tested in mice.
I'll also point out that, in the example given, researchers gave 1/500 of the mouse dose, probably because they knew there was the probability of something going wrong and wanted to minimize the chance, in the name of safety. Ever hear of the FDA? They will eat your company for breakfast if you're reckless with your experiments.
Why? Because you don't agree with it?
Locked behind steel cage
Forced to take drugs we've made
Cut them up just to show
What we already know
Before they die...
Who will hear them cry
Song Title: Ark of Suffering
Thrash Metal Band: Tourniquet
This is great music for headbangers who enjoy thinking.
Reupload?
So we are basically kind of wasting our money by donating it to a cancer research centre ?
Oh no. They are still coming up with drugs and ways to help fighting against cancer. But since they can't use humans as test subjects until they make extensive tests on rodents their progress is not as streamlined as it appears to be.
As a Biomedical researcher, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen.
The scientist girl is Bryden from Project Mc2!
GUYS WATCH THE FULL EPISODE!! these clips only show part of the issues they represent. The episode will usually provide solutions and substitute to these problems by the end.
Adam ruins everything isn't just about pointing out a problem. It's about finding solutions too
I’m going to add this to the “useful information I’ll never use file” in my brain.
How about pigs? Cheap, breeds fast and you can eat them when the testing is done? And only what 98% same DNA?
ew, i do not want to eat a pig that is tested with any chemical i do not know
Lau Darren the chance is you already do it.. You see, what does the pigs and cows eat? Well yes grass but also lining (animal feed) that contains antibiotics etc. Or they made the animal feed out of other animals like cows and sheep. That's how UK had crazy cow desise..
But these pigs tested on would be tested with experimental chemicals
Clickpodcast Silvereagle45 Yes, although I said you can eat them jokingly and said that thing above
I meant that we should test it on pigs because same size as us plus so similar than rats. OFC we shouldn't eat them!
well,but as Adam brought up,the Animal Welfare Act,dosen't protect mice at all.
i’m glad this is on youtube because i needed this info for a research argumentative paper
I think that we should experiment on prison population, there are so many people who’s life can be used for a better purpose that they have ever archived themselves.
I said that out loud once... a lot of people didn't agree; to say the least.
Sooo... winnies voice is very voice actor friendly.... i can absolutely see (hear) her voice in cartoons or videogames. Very pleasant.
So does this mean the studies that say sugar is more addictive then cocaine are bunk?
For mice, no. For humans...maybe?
Sugar is way less dangerous and used to be a rare, somewhat important thing you wanted.
Lots of animals crave fruit for a reason.
whatever3132 That's because sugar is cheap, available, and most importantly legal. And in just about every manufactured food.
Mice are generally less expensive than rats, both on original purchase and housing. They're often easier to handle (more docile) than rats, depending on the strain of each. In some cases, reagents such as specific antibodies are more easily available for mice (this is a bit of a circular issue - if mice are more widely used, then more people will make mouse-specific reagents, which in turn makes mice more popular).
There are more strains of mice available, and more knockout and transgenic mice. Constructing new knockouts and transgenics is still easier in mice than in rats. Again, there is a little bit of a circular component here - because more people use mice, more people refine and improve mouse genetic techniques.
All these reasons (but perhaps especially the cost) mean that mice are the first choice for generic lab studies. However, there are specific fields in which, for one reason or another, rats are more widely used. That may be for historical reasons - if the early work was all done with rats, then you may need to validate your own system in rats too - or there may be biological reasons. For example, there may be a strain of rats that develops the disease of interest, or you may need the larger size to se what you're doing, or something like that.
Mice and rats together make up the vast majority of lab vertebrate animals, and mice are maybe twice as commonly use as rats.
Something wrong: _exists_
Adam: _begone_
Nobody in science really says that a rodent is a perfect analog for a human it is an analog for the similarity of being a mammal. It is cheaper to use mice than to go right to pigs, these are far closer to humans but also more expensive and harder to work with so, before you trial on pigs you trial on mice. Mice trials is just one of many research steps for saving money over using perfect models that are extremly expensive.
So you admit it's about money and not actually getting good results and expanding our knowledge?
Reupload
Robotix p
By the people who run the show
Robotix who cares :)
“Everyone ‘knows’ that” should be adam’s catchphrase
What he fails to point out is that 20% is a great success rate in these studies and he doesn't offer any alternative because one does not exist. This video is mostly click-bait and misdirection.
TL;DR: The problem with lab mice is we have no alternatives, why does this video exist again? oh yeah click-bait and views.
Chill my dude. Its more informative than most media.
This video is note the whole episode, in the full video he suggest viable solutions to this problem etc...
they do come up with a solution at the end of it
hes not wrong abt the no alternatives part, but even this vid admits there are not many options in the first place lel, thats why ppl are stuck to experimenting on mice. I think he didnt watch this carefully
he gave the alternative to test on human cells instead of just humans??
If they allowed scientists to experiment in criminals imagine how much more efficient medical science would be. And I don’t mean all criminals just the worse of the worse.
I don't think we would have enough of the "worst of the worst".
This video is "ruining" a straw man.
Whoever "researched" for this episode clearly don't understand how scientific research is done and why scientists need animal research before jumping to human trials.
There are thousands of mice pouring into my house from this one bag in the corner of my basement
Is it only me that this video reminds me of "Pinky and the brain" 😍
Raghav Aggrwal that's literally the point of the video.
"Well Tell the cancer patients they have to wait PETE!!!" XD
Reupload to erase/reset the comment section.
They could delete all comments if they want no reason the reupload for that and lose all the view count
0:46
Cpt.America:I understood that reference
the truth about super foods please
Parody Version:
Winnie: "But, Adam, what we are doing here?"
Adam: "Same thing we do every night, Winnie. Ruining a common misconception!"
Singers: 🎶The Winnie, the Winnie and the Adam, Adam, Adam, Adam, Adam🎶
Original:
Pinky: "But, Brain, what are we doing to tomorrow night?"
Brain: "Same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world!"
Singers: 🎶The Pinky, the Pinky and the Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain, Brain🎶
the show should be renamed adam pushes his political agenda on everyone
Eh, kind of. Most clinical trials have the goal of proving efficacy and/or safety.
Most mouse trials are basic science, where the goal is to understand biology on a greater level, which can lead to better treatments. We wouldn't have monoclonal antibody drugs like Rituximab (a major anti-autoimmune drug) if we didn't take the time to understand inflammation as a biological pathway. Mice can be a good place to start on that.
#project mc2
Bryden Bandweth!!!
Love the pinky and the brain touch
I like rats, put them in a soup.
It's just a prank
Cye Monkey i love rats i have had 6 rats as pets and currently i have 1
Not to brag, but I make a pretty mean RATatouille myself.
I study at the Royal Veterinary College in London, and we barely hear about mice in testing anymore. The big ones we use are Zebrafish and Fruit Flies. I imagine they aren't much better but they're popular for similar reasons; cheap and easy to genetically modify.
This is bias. Incredible research has been done on mice. I literally don't have the time to correct the massive inaccuracies in this video. Adam, if we ever meet, or if you see this comment. Feel free to find me using the internet, it's easy. Message me, and I WILL spend the time correcting this piece for you sentence by sentence. It's basically garbage.
Matthew Cecil Pointing out the flaws in this method of testing doesn't mean that great discoveries can't be made with it. He's just addressing the common misconception that a mouse is a perfect analogue for humans, which it isn't.
Adam is just the presenter, the research and writing is done by other people
Thanks for keeping me in mint condition. Now put me on your bike
Animaniacs, nice touch.
Id never be able to be a scientist if it meant hurting animals
its bad waste of huge money ! waste of research time ! waste of effort ! and like said this has caused many cases of harm to humans when it reached human use like
much better for science to stop testing on animals .... but the bureaucracy is preventing that - and there is no public pressure to change that cause most of the public is ignorant about this issue and think animal testing is needed which it isnt
LOL okay. Next time there's a new untested, unknown drug, we'll ask you to try it out first to see if it's lethal or not. If it is, then too bad you're dead.
Wouldn't you rather have an animal die from that drug or you? Hmm? I don't see you volunteering to die for medicine. Perhaps you should stop taking for granted the fact that we saved billions of human lives by sacrificing billions of animals in their place.
The only other option to animal testing is human testing. Would you rather die, or let a couple of lab mice die for you? Exactly.
You wrote a lie and build a theory about that lie :
"we most dance 1 hour for a great pink dragon that lives underground and sacrifice 4 dogs and throw them alive into a fire in order to do it correctly or do you prefer to burn yourself ? Exactly. its either we sacrifice this dogs or you or another human !!" ................. when in reality there is no need for anyone to die for that pink dragon
and the only reason you are pushing for someone to be harmed is out of ignorance
again : "the public is ignorant about this issue and think animal testing is needed which it isnt"
im not going to keep replying cause i cant teach this entire complicated subject in a youtube comment - but if you read about this you can see how animal testing has harmed the advancement of science and medicine and even if you dont care about animals at all you still should be against testing on animals cause it harms humans .... but again not something i can explain in a youtube comment so please read about it - this is my last comment here
dewsdew Excuse me? Testing is not necessary? Have you DONE clinical research? Have you seen how academia is conducted? Have you even seen the LAW?!? The FDA will literally NOT approve a drug unless it has gone through 3 phases of testing, one of which involves animals, and another which involves volunteer patients. The animals are tested first so the patients aren't subjected to high risk. It is the LAW.
It's not a matter of whether animal testing is needed anymore. It's so blatantly obvious that the FDA requires layers of living animal tests that must be performed before a drug even goes near a live human. We try to be humane. There are regulations regarding animal testing and what can a researcher can and cannot do. But, animal testing as a whole is 100% necessary for any drug to enter the mainstream. Perhaps that will change if we improve our technology to simulate living physiology, but that's not in another century.
That's called torture, and that's illegal (for humans) in conventional international law since 1984. Those who oppose animal testing are generally those in the general public, with a limited knowledge of how drug testing works. We kill animals to try to find out what amount of the chemical (per kg of body mass) WON'T kill a human, which in turn gives us information about its side effects and toxicity levels.
Do all the animal rights activists think we are some sort of barbaric torturer? We are literally trying to save human lives here. I guess some people are just opposed to that.
How do you explain all of the law firm commercials seeking victims of drug companies to join in lawsuits against those drug companies.Would the FDA have approved animal-tested drugs that produced the monstrous side-effects the drugs manifest in humans? Are the FDA beaureaucrats corrupt?
I've wondered... ok, so the law prohibits *giving* cruel and unusual punishment, but what if death row inmates were given the option to volunteer? Specifically, for medical testing and the like (the issues about innocent people being sentenced to life/execution aside): if there's a chance of the given example of massive organ failure; that cockblocks some wannabe Federalist judge from getting his nut off on executing someone on his orders, but also gives valuable medical data that can save lives. You could offer things like to have any resulting treatments to be named after the prisoner, or named in the research paper; be immortalized in the annals of science, something like that.
And on the crazier side: not one sociopath ever wanted to be thrown into a volcano? Sacrificed to Pele?
Well, with cancer and the lot, you have to have cancer first. In mice, the mice are genetically engineered to develop cancer, in most cases, so that drugs can be tested on them and human trials are done on volunteers with cancer.
It would be hard to find a death row inmate with cancer and want to volunteer for the betterment of the world.
Furthermore, the death row itself is rare in the modern world, America is the only first world country that still uses a system like that and it is already facing pressures from human rights organizations. If they were to start experimenting on prisoners, everything would get worse.
Not to mention the fact that, by creating a system where death row inmates are substituted for volunteers in possibly dangerous science experiments, there would not be enough inmates to meet demands for research. This might cause a very tragic shift where the number of people ruled to be killed would increase for capitalistic profit and that's just sad.
those poor mice
let’s do science tests on bananas