How come scientists only cure cancer in mice and not humans?

[Leros]

Doesn't make sense. Do scientists have some innate love for mice and hatred for humans?

 

[zanejohnson]

omg the troll threads..

no, docs cannot test on humans based on law.

 

[disappoint]

omg the troll threads..

no, docs cannot test on humans based on law.

?

What about CIA docs?

 

[God Mode]

I hear oldsmoboat has cures in his basement. You should check it out.

 

[Newbian]

Because mice are cute and fuzzy.

 

[zanejohnson]

?

What about CIA docs?

black budget.. learn about it.. it's bigger than anything anyone is arguing about in the budget now. including immigration/nuclear/drugs

 

[Red Squirrel]

It's all political BS. I'm sure they have the technology to cure most cancer, but they probably can't legally use it due to FDA restrictions, patents, etc... Another issue is that so much money goes into research if they truly found/implemented a cure, that money would stop coming in. A lot of it probably goes straight to the government as it's probably taxed at some point, so the government will never allow a cure to actually be declared as found, and allow it to be used. At least that's my guess. While my guess may be off as far as specifics, I can almost guarantee it's something political.

 

[Newbian]

It's all political BS. I'm sure they have the technology to cure most cancer, but they probably can't legally use it due to FDA restrictions, patents, etc... Another issue is that so much money goes into research if they truly found/implemented a cure, that money would stop coming in. A lot of it probably goes straight to the government as it's probably taxed at some point, so the government will never allow a cure to actually be declared as found, and allow it to be used. At least that's my guess. While my guess may be off as far as specifics, I can almost guarantee it's something political.

 

[zanejohnson]

yes all we should know in REALITY.. is that you cannot believe anything these people say. period.

smoke pot, that will cure your cancer.. welcome to the chickens coming home to roost..

it's only downhill/uphill from here. PRAISE GOD/ALLAH.

 

[Destiny]

Very simple logic and not complicated:

1) Mice have no money...

2) People have money...

Econ 101 = sell stuff to people to take their money...

 

[watdaflip]

I'd imagine there are significantly less laws about human testing in China or other countries, however the US is the leader in medical study/advancement, and there are laws against testing humans until they get the require approval.

One thing I've always wondering if why they don't allow people on death row to volunteer for experimental drugs since they are sentenced to death anyway. Who knows?!?!

 

[Crono]

Because they don't really "cure"; mice of cancer, and I doubt if you are actually reading peer reviewed papers in medical journals they would use that word, or at least not in most cases.

A cancer "cure" is probably some journalist's interpretation, and they are usually more careful (mostly) not to throw around that word when talking about human trials.

They can make mice go into remission in some tests, but that's no more unusual than when humans go into remission. A lot of the drugs and treatments tested may be for very specific types of cancers, may prove not be suitable for humans for whatever reason (like extreme toxicity at low doses), or may only treat a cancer effectively in an unusual scenario.

 

[Destiny]

I'd imagine there are significantly less laws about human testing in China or other countries, however the US is the leader in medical study/advancement, and there are laws against testing humans until they get the require approval.

One thing I've always wondering if why they don't allow people on death row to volunteer for experimental drugs since they are sentenced to death anyway. Who knows?!?!

Because there are some NGOs saying it is cruel and inhumane punishment...

 

[OBLAMA2009]

Doesn't make sense. Do scientists have some innate love for mice and hatred for humans?

maybe cuz mice dont care about side effects like puffy faces. loss of hair and impotent dix

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

I'd imagine there are significantly less laws about human testing in China or other countries, however the US is the leader in medical study/advancement, and there are laws against testing humans until they get the require approval.

One thing I've always wondering if why they don't allow people on death row to volunteer for experimental drugs since they are sentenced to death anyway. Who knows?!?!

Besides all the regulations regarding cruel punishments (which could be countered by signing a form declaring it's voluntarily) there's tons of regulations against human test subjects in earlier stages of the research, and it's probably a lot easier to test something like ebola than cancer as there's many different kinds of cancers and you'd have to grow the exact one you are developing the treatment for in that criminal, and would still be stuck with tons of unknown variables due to it being a random human rather than a test animal of which you know the complete genome.

It might be possible to use criminals for the early stages of human testing, but often they already have patients for that who are no longer treatable by regular methods and are willing to undergo experimental treatment just in case it may help them. And I'd rather see them get the early treatment than a criminal as in that stage there's usually a high chance of it having a positive effect anyway. So it would basically come down to testing the effects of the drugs on a healthy subject instead, what they at the moment pay test groups for. And unlike a regular test group having death row criminals would give a whole new problem with security as you don't want them to be able to flee, nor attack the staff or eachother, nor take anything with them that might pose a threat for themselves or others.

As I said before something fast like ebola is 'easier' to test on them, but if a criminal is willing to sign up for that voluntarily he or she would probably have to be checked in to a mental institution.

In an ideal world we'd not have to test on animals anymore, but unfortunately we're not there yet. Growing of tissue for testing does show promise, but it only can show the effects of a drug on the tissue (infected and non-infected), and it will not show psychological or physical effects on the patient. And due to the regulations (and the limited number of human test subjects) such tests at some point do require animal testing still at the moment.

The plus side is of course that the same research also causes medication for animals to be discovered.

 

[watdaflip]

Because there are some NGOs saying it is cruel and inhumane punishment...

Tomato Tomäto

Besides all the regulations regarding cruel punishments (which could be countered by signing a form declaring it's voluntarily) there's tons of regulations against human test subjects in earlier stages of the research, and it's probably a lot easier to test something like ebola than cancer as there's many different kinds of cancers and you'd have to grow the exact one you are developing the treatment for in that criminal, and would still be stuck with tons of unknown variables due to it being a random human rather than a test animal of which you know the complete genome.

It might be possible to use criminals for the early stages of human testing, but often they already have patients for that who are no longer treatable by regular methods and are willing to undergo experimental treatment just in case it may help them. And I'd rather see them get the early treatment than a criminal as in that stage there's usually a high chance of it having a positive effect anyway. So it would basically come down to testing the effects of the drugs on a healthy subject instead, what they at the moment pay test groups for. And unlike a regular test group having death row criminals would give a whole new problem with security as you don't want them to be able to flee, nor attack the staff or eachother, nor take anything with them that might pose a threat for themselves or others.

As I said before something fast like ebola is 'easier' to test on them, but if a criminal is willing to sign up for that voluntarily he or she would probably have to be checked in to a mental institution.

In an ideal world we'd not have to test on animals anymore, but unfortunately we're not there yet. Growing of tissue for testing does show promise, but it only can show the effects of a drug on the tissue (infected and non-infected), and it will not show psychological or physical effects on the patient. And due to the regulations (and the limited number of human test subjects) such tests at some point do require animal testing still at the moment.

The plus side is of course that the same research also causes medication for animals to be discovered.

Agreed, it would open up many ethical, security, as well as compatibility issues between the disease and the treatment they are to receive. I'm just saying it from a standpoint of a human being that has, as ordered by the state, a definitive end date to their life; If they choose to volunteer to participate in such treatment, perhaps due to some sense of atonement for crimes committed decided to contribute to the betterment of humanity, why not allow them to do so. Assuming that they are a good candidate for human testing for the particular treatment they were to receive.

Although I guess that also leaves it open to additional issues of coercion on the part of the state to get additional death row inmates to "volunteer" for participation, as well as the possibility of stricter sentences in order to put more people into a situation of making such a decision.

At any rate, I'm just saying, there are people with "nothing left to lose" who might be willing to participate in human testing if there were not regulations against it.

 

[DrPizza]

Perhaps you're ignoring that for every 100 attempts, 99 of the mice die.

 

[Newbian]

Perhaps you're ignoring that for every 100 attempts, 99 of the mice die.

And the surviving one keeps trying to eat brains of the other mice.

 

[Number1]

It's kind of sad that this has to be explained to some people.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Because they don't really "cure"; mice of cancer, and I doubt if you are actually reading peer reviewed papers in medical journals they would use that word, or at least not in most cases.

A cancer "cure" is probably some journalist's interpretation, and they are usually more careful (mostly) not to throw around that word when talking about human trials.

They can make mice go into remission in some tests, but that's no more unusual than when humans go into remission. A lot of the drugs and treatments tested may be for very specific types of cancers, may prove not be suitable for humans for whatever reason (like extreme toxicity at low doses), or may only treat a cancer effectively in an unusual scenario.

That's not entirely true. It actually is easier to treat cancer in mice than it is in humans. Mouse tumors tend to have fewer genetic mutations and are less metastatic. Additionally, it is far easier to alter mice genetics or gene expression in adult mice than adult humans because of the difference in mass and the reduced amount of time needed to administer a dose before the gene/siRNA are degraded of washed out of the body.

If cancer was as easy to treat in humans as it is for mice, we'd be a lot further along than we are now.

 

[Brainonska511]

It's all political BS. I'm sure they have the technology to cure most cancer, but they probably can't legally use it due to FDA restrictions, patents, etc... Another issue is that so much money goes into research if they truly found/implemented a cure, that money would stop coming in. A lot of it probably goes straight to the government as it's probably taxed at some point, so the government will never allow a cure to actually be declared as found, and allow it to be used. At least that's my guess. While my guess may be off as far as specifics, I can almost guarantee it's something political.

As a scientist doing basic biophysical research, stfu. It's not that fucking easy.

 

[WelshBloke]

Perhaps you're ignoring that for every 100 attempts, 99 of the mice die.

Plus I'd guess the long term survival rate is probably a damn sight easier to reach with mice.

 

[shortylickens]

The biggest problem (and there are many) is that the term cancer is a generic label attached to a number of different medical conditions and not all of them are really the same thing. They cant all be corrected the same way, if at all.

 

[waggy]

And the surviving one keeps trying to eat brains of the other mice.

minor trade-off for surviving cancer.

 

[Braznor]

Duh, you forget they make many mice get cancer too deliberately.

By the way, mice can't sue either if the treatment flops....