Ah, but my point was that even from a "scientific" (human-centric) viewpoint using mice as models is controversial and has lead to many, many wrong conclusions. Just one famous example is the drug Fen-phen, which was not dangerous in mice, but was in humans (causing damage to the human heart). And of course, there is the famous Thalidomide case, where thousands of children were born with malformed arms and legs. So, this argument against non-human animal models isn't just about ideologies or even other species, it's about also human health.
Consider that in a ten year study the FDA "found that out of 198 new medications, 102 (52 percent) were either recalled or relabeled secondary to side effects not predicted in animal tests." (from NAVS.org (http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_medicalresearch))
I do agree that many scientists think that non-human models are useful, but as I pointed out before, you could also say that hammers are useful tools for computer repair, since they sometimes can work to fix a problem. I would say that the reason that scientists continue to use non-human models could very easily have more to do with politics and lack of creativity than anything else. I don't think, for the most part, that these scientists are malicious in their intent to continue to use questionable or unreliable models. I think they honestly believe that they are doing a good thing (for humans at least).
Perhaps a more accurate thing you could say, which wouldn't be debatable, would be something like: "Whether we approve of this use of mice or not, scientists have used them for research for a long time and many believe that doing so has led to countless treatments and medicines for humans."
no subject
Consider that in a ten year study the FDA "found that out of 198 new medications, 102 (52 percent) were either recalled or relabeled secondary to side effects not predicted in animal tests." (from NAVS.org (http://www.navs.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ain_sci_medicalresearch))
I do agree that many scientists think that non-human models are useful, but as I pointed out before, you could also say that hammers are useful tools for computer repair, since they sometimes can work to fix a problem. I would say that the reason that scientists continue to use non-human models could very easily have more to do with politics and lack of creativity than anything else. I don't think, for the most part, that these scientists are malicious in their intent to continue to use questionable or unreliable models. I think they honestly believe that they are doing a good thing (for humans at least).
Perhaps a more accurate thing you could say, which wouldn't be debatable, would be something like: "Whether we approve of this use of mice or not, scientists have used them for research for a long time and many believe that doing so has led to countless treatments and medicines for humans."