The Problem with Lab Mice | Adam Ruins Everything

Mouse trials are easy, cheap and apply to humans less than 80% of the time.
Watch an all-new @Adam Ruins Everything on truTV every Tuesday 10/9C! #AdamRuinsEverything
Adam Ruins Everything - Adam Conover, CollegeHumor's resident know-it-all and major bummer, takes on society's biggest misconceptions.
See more www.collegehumor.com
LIKE us on: / collegehumor
FOLLOW us on: / collegehumor
FOLLOW us on: / www

[@LeviAEthan512]

"Thanks for keeping me in mint condition. Wanna stick me in a bicycle wheel?"

[@tridiots3681]

come on, your bicycle will sound cooler!

[@MrRhombus]

This woman can’t decide if she wants to stay in mint condition or used for fun!

[@Hairbrain236]

What bike

[@tridiots3681]

@@MrRhombus harder.

[@tridiots3681]

@@Hairbrain236 bike is a offbrand of Nike

[@colinb8439]

"I heard rats are 97% related to humans." Well, I also heard we are 50% related to bananas.

[@dlg.studios5649]

🤣

[@user-sy7bk2cs1m]

Onions have more DNA than us

[@george2991]

any human is 99.9% identical to any other human with no relationship whatsoever. The truth is that what makes us different "takes up" a very small shard of, well, us, biologically, but it is still just as, if not more important than the rest of it

[@breaddd8970]

Wait im related to a banana

[@zombiekittenxx8471]

We share the dna.

[@AtalienaFhang]

I know this is a dramatization but anyone working in a lab as a researcher is more than aware of the limitations of mice as a model organism.

[@Supernoxus]

Word! I have worked in a lab before, and that just as a student, and even I knew of the limitations already. It's one of the first things I was taught. Yet Adam presents it like researchers themselves are idiots who aren't aware of that fact.

[@ZetaHorzion]

@@eliptical7033 exactly, he didnt call them idiots, but questioned why they continue while knowing that

[@FourByteBurger]

Well these episodes are usually meant to be knowledge to people who don't know these things

[@Ash-zm1vx]

“Anyone working in the lab” Good thing these videos aren’t directed at people working in their industries

[@jonathandpg6115]

@@ZetaHorzion Except if he did his research he knows why we use the. Before considering the trials on humans it is best to understand how it works on an animal genome period. From there you can gain an understanding and then continue to proceed with more trials.....instead of dry running it completely on a human where a lot of the research could have been done prior. It isn’t a replacement, but a beginning. He does this on purpose and his videos often lead people to more misunderstandings.

[@chuumon95]

I had a feeling there was going to be a reference to “Pinky & The Brain”

[@Pandacalifornia]

Was it that the characters in the thumbnail were clearly styled after Pinky and the Brain that tipped you off?

[@DantheToonMan]

The background music, even?

[@johnzdowning]

Same especially the thunbnail

[@gible2330]

“What are we going to do today? The same as we do everyday” is litteraly a pinky and te brain reference

[@lordthennek2045]

NARF

[@wtfdinges]

As someone who has worked with mice in both Europe and China, I can confirm that more than 80% of the results are not necessarily applicable to humans. However! Notice the word 'necessarily'. As the studies are performed on mice, researchers are generally not allowed to claim it works on humans in the same manner. This doesn't mean it will definitely not work, it only means it has not been tested on humans, which in return means the researchers cannot make that claim. Besides that, about half of all experiments on mice are not meant as tests of human treatment, but rather experiments to understand biological principles. Take my research for example: optogenetics. Most of my research on mice is focused on the understanding of signalling pathways within or between cells. I often don't care whether or not my experiments will also work on humans, I only care about the new knowledge about cell biology we gain from it. Of course this knowledge might lead to new ways of treating human diseases as we understand cell biology better, but that is an indirect result which will not count towards the statistics which are mentioned by Adam here. Although I enjoy 'Adam Ruins Everything' a lot, it is often just as misleading as the original view the public had before watching it.

[@daniellclary]

Kinda cool to see people in the field make comments. I'm just a common person but I know that Mice are not a mach up with humans. But I also know that much what Adam said was misleading. Which seems to be a trend he has been following

[@agusti92]

Mycel you need to fully understand something in order to simulate it. Specially because simulations need simplifications, in order for a computer to be able to calculate it in a timely manner.

[@jokebapack2]

So how in the end you can say that a drug really work on human or not? You test it on human?

[@georgekromidas5097]

Totally agree, sometimes the show can mislead people.

[@nikkekatski]

Pretty sure that trumps wall isn’t a misleading episode

[@HanifCarroll]

"Everyone knows that testing on rodents is practically the same as doing actual human trials." Ok, I'm a fan of the series and all, but come on...really? Who is claiming that?

[@katrinal353]

Literally most of the human population.

[@katrinal353]

+Alpha Morty What you said, is factually wrong.

[@sup4744]

Considering everyone on the planet isn't a scientist and actually believe these sort of things easily, I would have to say: most people

[@JesterAzazel]

I've never heard anyone claim that outright, but I do see a lot of articles about cancer studies involving mice, which are written like a cure was found. Not the study itself, but the article about the study that winds up in DailyMail, Huffpo, and IFLS. Of course, all the people sharing the articles probably don't know the study was done on mice because they don't read the bullshit they post. They just see "cancer cured" and their eyes light up. Bonus points if the study involved weed.

[@i2cube]

A news article benefits from having sensationalized titles and flashy words to attract people to read them. Think about it. Do you think the media would like to have a title like "We found a cure to cancer" or like "We found a drug that reduces the size of a tumor by 5% in 70% of the mice?" You can never judge the merit of a scientific study based on a news article. A news article can make really big, baseless claim but when you actually read the original publication of the study, the claim is usually much, much more conservative. Most modern day scientists will not say that "testing on rodents is basically the same as testing on humans." FDA will not approve any cancer drugs with testing only on mice. In fact, data on mice (or on other non-human animals) with a whole bunch of other data, will only allow you to apply getting the status of investigational new drug, at which point you are allowed to test the drug on humans (Phase I testing, mostly on healthy humans for safety testing), and then you have to go through 2 more phases of testing on human to prove that the drug is effective and safe and then finally you are allowed to market your drug.

[@kirstenlopez]

I am an oncology researcher and with all due respect to Dr. Raza, her statement about how we should be using human cancer cells, and not mice, to study human cancers is disingenuous. Although there are cancer models that use mouse-derived tumours, the current gold standard for preclinical cancer research is using patient-derived cancer cells that are then implanted into mice. Even labs without access to patient samples use human cancer cell lines. While obviously this isn't a completely accurate representation of the original tumour, it is the best we can do without experimenting on actual human patients. In theory, perhaps, non-human primates would be closer to reality, but they are prohibitively expensive and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to get enough of them to do proper statistics. Tl;dr mouse experiments are only the first step. We use them to weed out the ideas that don't work but no scientist with a brain would ever think that everything that works in mice will work in humans.

[@KManAbout]

Kirsten Anne Lopez do you think it's a bit unfair to call her comment disingenuous when you heard her talking for 30 seconds. And if that's the case, that the gold standard now is slightly different focused on human implanted cells in mice(is that right? ). Then her point stands about cancer and regular mice also the real gold standard is humans. You can do your best with mice models but implanting human cells has whole bunch of other differences to both the normal mice model and human one.

[@kirstenlopez]

K Man My statement on her being disingenuous is based on the assumption that she knew how much (or little) time she’d have to make her case. You can’t tell me she’s not smart enough to come up with something that’s not as misleading as “if we want to cure cancer in humans, we should be using human cancer cells”, which implies that we’re currently not doing that even though we very much are. As for your 2nd question, it depends on what you mean by “regular” mice. The mice we use to study human cancers are genetically engineered to make implanting human cells easier. One of the reasons mice are popular as a model organism is that they’re relatively easy to manipulate genetically while being evolutionarily similar enough to humans to be useful. So in cancer research, at least, mice are an invaluable tool for studying human cancer cells outside actual humans or artificial plastic dishes. What really irritates me , and correct me if I’m wrong, is that this video seems to be saying something like “we shouldn’t be using mice to study things about humans”, which 1) ignores the many important discoveries we’ve made and are currently still making about human biology from mouse models and 2) fails to provide any alternatives while suggesting that scientists are just clinging to an outdated tool because of tradition or stubbornness. To be clear, I’m not accusing anyone of being intentionally misleading. But there are so many things wrong with this video that I’d end up writing an essay about it if I tried to list them all.

[@KManAbout]

Kirsten Anne Lopez Usually Adam gives solutions at the end of the video in the full video and not in the clip. I think you should probably check out his podcast if you can't watch his video. But off the show where he only gets 15 minutes to make his points since its along with some mediocre jokes and humour he takes a but longer to do that on his podcast. I think that he should really extend his show to thirty minutes to make better case for what he says because I see where he's coming from

[@goopiej933]

Kirsten Anne Lopez you aren't an oncology researcher

[@MarketStaller]

And how did you come to that conclusion?

[@EsteffersonTorres]

"Everyone knows testing on rodents is pratically the same as actual human trials" That line is incredbly misleading, because I don't think a scientist/reasearcher with a specialized degree would never make that claim unless they are trying to be dishonest about their research. I'm a physicist, not a biologist, but I'm pretty sure trials on rodents are just one of the steps towards trials on humans.

[@venomsnek1857]

..or trying to be purposely dumb to create a situation for this show? Nah its prolly the latter

[@Ash-zm1vx]

We need Adam ruins strawman now

[@lordthennek2045]

"I don't think a scientist/reasearcher with a specialized degree would never make that claim" see the problem its the 4th/2nd last word making it a double negative I hate to be a grammer nazzi but I love physics and can not let you get away with an incorrect sentence you physicist otherwise yea

[@thisismyname3307]

@@lordthennek2045 he probably mispelled ever lol

[@lordthennek2045]

@@thisismyname3307 fair

[@yasminaelric]

As someone who works in Cancer Research and does tests on mice, I can say that they aren't unnecessary because they don't apply on humans. First of all we're testing with human cells before making the decision to test on our mice. & I'm glad that the law in Germany is actually very strict.

[@funkytikigod7039]

How does this ruin mice? It's called a model organism, no one in science is under the misconception that they are supposed to replace testing on humans. Drugs used by humans never skip the human trials phase, the point of a model organism is to investigate fundamental mechanisms that are applicable to more complex systems such as humans. Model organisms have experimental advantages that humans could never have, it would be utterly impractical to use humans for large scale chemical screens, genetic screens and genetic manipulations, not even considering the ethical issues. A more valid argument against animal testing is that we should strive to develop synthetic or computerised models that better simulate metabolism etc. Just saying that mice are different to humans so the evil scientists are experimenting on them for no reason is ridiculous.

[@funkytikigod7039]

I'm glad to see that once you scroll past the first few comments there a lots also making similar points with a lot of likes, hopefully most of the people that watch this video will realise what trash it is, either from their own understanding or from these comments.

[@newtextdocument]

I don't know if the video was implying scientists didn't know about this. It was more to inform the public and the people on the top that they should probably change the laws. Cause if the system was different, a lot of diseases could have already been solved. (Literally allowing the industry to survive so it can create more diseases so we need more medicine to survive. Which in the end, creates more problems for us.)

[@isabellabornberg2153]

FunkyTikiGod +

[@joechief2456]

+New Text Document What laws should be changed? The law requiring animal testing before human testing, that despite the drawbacks in this video catch many highly toxic candidate drugs before they're used in humans? Animal ethics laws? (I can see an argument here but there would still need to be room for animal testing, and it would even then hinder research) I'm failing to see what laws could be changed to accelerate research aside from rolling back protections that are deliberately in place to prevent unnecessary harm to humans or allowing forced testing on humans to collect clinical data faster, both of which are effective (there's lots of data on human biology and psychology from Nazi experiments for instance) but tend to be frowned on by modern society for what I would hope are obvious reasons.

[@varelovissa]

New Text Document But the video has also given you those misconceptions - there would not be more diseases "solved". also wtf are you trying to say here, that Big Pharma creates diseases (?? stay woke??) - hope you're a troll

[@TheBenole]

"Everyone knows rodent=humans" No one in a science study working with mice would ever say this. I get why adam is doing this but he should have used the more real problem of the general public thinking this. and not make it seem like real scientists think that mice testing is basically the same as human testing

[@jackyzhu9761]

TheBenole, it’s a inaccurate statement made to see something that then gets disproven. Wish people watch the entire video and get the point it’s a debunking show, which means going for inaccurate statements, then denouncing them as false.

[@JohnEusebioToronto]

@@DJMMLJ He literally says “Even though we know Mice aren’t useful! Why do we keep using them?”

[@ninjaked1265]

The scientist is being the audience’s voice

[@iffzahid]

This was the most generalised bullshit I ve ever seen about cancer research. I am a biologist working on cancer myself and we use mouse models to get an idea of the toxicity of the product, and we slowly move towards bigger animal models like rabbits, primates and even pigs to get an idea of the dosage. We also test stuff on human cell lines. You cant directly test on human subjects, which is why these elaborate steps have to be followed to get a new drug out. And not to mention the pharma-mafia, who hinders the sale of any new drug because their old drugs will have to be replaced. The pharmaceutical world is a pretty dark place and its not because of lab mice.

[@KManAbout]

Ifrah Zahid slowly that's the point. Have you ever heard the expression time is money?

[@iffzahid]

K Man Well obviously! Why do you think research costs so much. We absolutely can not rush stuff in the lab because sadly science is not that simple.

[@fokeyjo]

This was my understanding too. I felt this to be quite misleading by not explaining that it's the first step in a very long chain of testing that tries to mitigate the 80% non-application and only 95% similar to human DNA issues.

[@giovannittomaselli436]

Totally agree with that. I work on neuroscience, and specifically on ex vivo cells from brain areas. It should be litterally impossible to work without mice. Sure thing, I use some cultures too, but the real things are mice!

[@goopiej933]

Ifrah Zahid you are not a biologist.

[@CassandraBankson]

*If more than one mouse is mice, is more than one spouse, spice?* 🐭🤔

[@Alx8282]

Cassandra Bankson only if you are mice

[@PACIFICBboy]

That's probably where the phrase "variety is the spice of life" came from

[@newtextdocument]

Is more than one house, hice?

[@mccrazy6021]

No, because that's not how the English language works. Goose-geese Moose-moose

[@mufasaiam7794]

Obviously not.

[@Starach]

No scientist would say any of the stuff she said. I love this series, but this was misleading. We don't test on mice to find out if a drug works for humans as the video over-simplisticly implied, we use it to in part as an initial test on a live organism to see how it reacts, a step up from tissue testing, and as a baseline for the experimental treatment. The part about them being cheap is true, they are easy to keep, breed and customise. They an essential stage in drug testing, we can't go straight from tissue tests straight to human trials, there has to be a live organism as an intermediary. We ARE testing on human cells of course, but you can never test a drug too thoroughly, so mice are still used. Their importance varies on what they are bing used for, they are mostly irrelevant in some drug development, in others they are an essential step. I look forward to when we don't need to use mice. Science is all about change, when it becomes feasible and safe to stop using mice, it will happen (hopefully soon).

[@Starach]

Having worked in a lab I can tell you that there are strict rules about how we handle and take care of the mice, one of the first things we learnt at Uni was how to handle and care for Lab animals. They may be widely used for things not allowed on other animals, but it is certainly not done unnecessarily or with cruel intent.

[@jordanbalke]

+

[@dianastanton5905]

They are supposed to be a starting point, not an end point.

[@BenTajer89]

Mice might be "overused" in cancer research, but human cells are also overused, and can't tell you many things that a whole animal can. Cells practically never behave the same way on a petri dish as they do in an intact organism. Also if you want to test a drug in humans, you better test it in a whole organism with intact physiology first. Also, there are plenty of studies that use human cancer cells in mice...

[@nopewhy6047]

You are wrong adam. J Young Pharm. 2010 Jul-Sep; 2(3): 332-336. doi: 10.4103/0975-1483.66810 It was Theralizumab, and was trialed on primates and showed some T-cell proliferation (which might lead to danger) and researchers knew it and acknowledged those patients. It was just a critical last step failure caused by hasted procedure, they did not properly calculate the right dose and injected too fast.

[@agusti92]

Nope why hats off for the paper doi mister.

[@thebahooplamaster]

So when you turn into a mouse, you keep your hair style?

[@matthewwalker3131]

thebahooplamaster thats the case with any animal shape shifting

[@notwhatiwant4240]

When he turns into a mouse, his pants dissapear. What did you expect?

[@jadew7764]

If there is one thing to take away from this,

[@arlenepalma8351]

Yeah,But His Hair is White

[@JazzFanss]

Male mice has no pants

[@cubez2289]

Gotta love that Pinky and the Brain reference 0:50

[@killajr51]

“it will sound like a motorcycle brrmmmmmmtttt” 😂😂😭😭💀

[@cybersilver5816]

This is an odd episode of Pinkie and the Brain

[@newtextdocument]

Weird indeed.

[@N279]

I remember that!

[@TheeSinnerman]

Omae wa

[@Idk-lb6yq]

I don’t think this is animaniacs...

[@ryan1484]

Cyber Silver Weird indeed

[@RonaldRaygun3]

Out of every Adam Ruins Everything this is the most un-researched topic out of all them. Testing on mice is the most cost effective way to do tests on DRUGS before human trials. Computer simulations will never be accurate because every human reacts differently to every type of drug. Humans are complex but in order to achieve a better understanding of how certain drugs will react in our body, we still need rodent trials. While technology may reach a point where we don’t need rodent trials, it is from from that point yet.

[@tobylegion6913]

So, when do we get "the problem with adam misrepresenting anything"?

[@7saany]

He has episodes where he gets corrected and goes over the corrections. doesnt mind one bit.

[@Supernoxus]

@@7saany I don't find these episodes very good. He usually just nitpicks details rather than admit that his entire episode was crap.

[@jackyzhu9761]

Everyone makes mistakes. Even on the most comedic edutainment, people make mistakes. Admit your mistakes and people say “It’s fine”. Don’t admit it and people, who find things are wrong, will decry it.

[@namefinder]

The start is already complete nonsense: "Everyone knows that testing on rodents is practically the same as doing human trials" What were you guys drinking?? No one in their right mind would claim that. And how can they at the same time drive up cost AND be cheap? I guess that video is aimed at mice who have been genetically altered to have a memory of only 2.5 seconds.

[@jackyzhu9761]

namefinder, you reverse quote mined. Reverse quote mining is cherrypicking a statement you disagree with. And this show gets false statements to flip them on their heads!

[@YourLocalMairaaboo]

You know when you buy something cheap but it costs more in the long run? It's like that.

[@dylanmccreary2164]

Also that expert at the end ignores the fact that researchers DO study human cancer cells. A LOT. It is still just a starting point. It is super easy to kill cancer cells in a dish. It is not so easy to do it in an organism without killing normal cells. Also, the problems with mice as a cancer model have been noted in literature, and there ARE people working on better models. But mice are great analogs for other aspects of health that AREN'T cancer (like basic neuroscience, for example).

[@newtextdocument]

Wow, a LOT of people aren't really noticing the problem with this. Human research should be allowed. It would help the world way more than using another animal. I'm not saying to force people into it, make it consensual. I bet a lot of people would sacrifice time and health for better futures for other people. Especially if they are already super sick.

[@Kotz_en]

Human research is already allowed. It has been since before we began experimenting on mice.

[@QuesoCookies]

Fear of death is all consuming. Most human cancer patients will, understandably, choose chemo/radiation as a treatment because it has some proven results rather than something that may harm them or do nothing and waste time they could have used getting chemo. It's really only repeat patients who've gone through chemo at least once before who get to the point of volunteering for experimental drugs, and even then, they'd rather just go peacefully in their homes than spend more time in a hospital. Human experimentation is really difficult and dangerous, mice experimentation is unreliable and wasteful. There's really no best solution here.

[@newtextdocument]

Queso, I guess you got a point. People can be pretty selfish sometimes. We are humans after all. The species that has done the most damage to their own living environment than any other species. But I am pretty sure people will someday find a more reliable way of research on humans. And when that day comes, research will be a lot easier and better for resources

[@nightrabbit4u]

Maybe we can push laws towards allowing more use of non human primates? More expensive, but it would give us a much closer result to what is effective in humans than mice would.

[@LouisKing995]

"Everyone knows that testing on rodents is practically the same as doing human trials" - no scientist has ever uttered those words. Rodent testing is not equivalent to human trials and no scientist has ever claimed that it is. No drug has ever been released based solely on how it faired in rodent testing. Rodent testing is just one small part of a very long trial process, and it isn't even remotely the most important part. This video is misleading.

[@BrassWing]

Trajan Correction: Assuming you're correct in saying this never happens, the scenario around which he based the research is misleading, not the data collected. He provides sources, if you don't believe the video, go see for yourself. Secondly, did you even watch the full video? Dr. Azra Raza even said mice have been used in clinical studies since the 1800s

[@FridolinH]

i agree. one animal has to bite the dust. it's either fruit flys or mice. and mice are great test subjects.

[@dujuan9646]

college humor isn't really known for stating correct facts.

[@psfreak333]

Couldn't agree more with you, whether it be mice, fruit flies, zebrafish. These are all great models for human studies but scientists aren't as dumb as hes making them sound in this video...scientists should know there are limits of their research and know the extent of which it applies. Mice or other model organisms are the FIRST step in testing new drugs for example, and humans are then later tested but it is a good starting point and no alternative exists at the current moment. For instance in developmental studies we can't just take real human babies and start testing and understanding the mechanisms of what causes abnormal development. They have their application and is why I will also be using them in my lab soon. As for why only 80% of the research doesn't apply is because most research papers don't always arrive at a conclusion but most studies will contribute another step in our knowledge.

[@marcus8833]

It's nice that a thread can all agree on something, but let me be that one rebel. *Lol he was giving a general example of the populace.* The general public isn't doing research to see whether mice testing is amazing and foolproof since most of us don't care. That was what he was saying

[@itzdavid688]

Me: what if there was Adam ruins Adam ruins everything Universe:*implodes*

[@dasupergamer6726]

“Congratulations! It’s 100” Me: *waka waka laugh intensifies*

[@Part_Time_Fox]

Ah pinky and the brain! My childhood favorite!

[@seanmcdermott1987]

ProTayToe Gamer it used to scare me

[@maxtheleopard]

ProTayToe Gamer What the heck are you doing here dude ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

[@egg-roll8968]

Damn it you beat me =3

[@Chrisallengallery]

Pinky was the smart one !

[@uselessweeb6505]

ProTayToe Gamer yes pinky and the brain

[@sophiadiggs-galligan962]

No scientist is claiming that mice are perfect (or even good) animal models- but the fact that their use is less regulated and that they are cheaper is important since funding isn't unlimited and potential therapies aren't necessarily safe, so researcher's hands are tied. Every animal model has its pros and cons- for instance, mice are very useful in studies of addiction! Aplysia californica was the perfect animal model for understanding the mechanisms of memory, but would be useless in a study about metabolism. I think mice should be used more selectively, but there is no alternative to using flawed animal models and initially performing this research on human subjects isn't acceptable.

[@KManAbout]

Sophia Diggs-Galligan they are a lot worse than not perfect.

[@aho9071]

So do you want to risk a human's life like finding a cure for cancer, but it only works on mice, but when human has the cure it only made it worse for them.

[@paulas.7369]

The director, writers, lighting, costume designers and actors on this show are awesome. Y'all really get the message across in each clip! Great job!

[@marb.u.b8263]

I feel like this dude misses the point of everything

[@dannywestbrooks7207]

That's sorta the point lmfao

[@mccrazy6021]

"Another tip, if you put me in your bike spoke it will sound like a motorcycle *motorcycles noises*" That was pretty funny

[@nopewhy6047]

You made quite a mistake on this episode we study human cancer on mouse, typically you xenograft human cancer cells to immunocompromised mouse. (even with physiological difference you can get basic results for cancer cell-antitumor drug interaction) it is more like medium for human cancer cells, it is not mouse's tumor that we research about but human cells. And you just cherry picked niche animal models to justify your viewpoint, Good job adam

[@stripypurplepanther]

Nope why This comment deserves more likes

[@YourOwnange]

Yaaaay teratoma assay. Haha when i read about it i had to laugh about how fucked up it is, but still saves shitload of people

[@MeCooper]

I would have said "They are not studying mice, they are studying cancer." ....But I've done no real research into the concept... and I'm a highschool drop out... I'm basically just going with the assumption that people who have spent years being educated in biology wouldn't be stupider than me and think mice and men are the same.

[@ryuwi1516]

Nope why I watch almost all episode of this show and trust me they make a lot of mistake.

[@phuckyew4765]

Doctor : Thanks for keeping me mint ! Same doctor " Put me in your bike wheel and DESTROY ME .

[@andotus7637]

“Why do we use mice then?” “Cuz we can’t use people with crippling depression” “What” “Yet”

[@thelapoisson]

This video is poorly researched and stated incorrect facts. The incorrect fact is "more than 80% of potential therapeutics fail when tested in people" is an article from Nature. If you bother to read the article it goes to include "Often, though, the real reason is that the preclinical experiments were not rigorously designed". The article is blaming that percentage on the experimental design, not the mice. The article is not properly cited in this video. Moving onto poorly researched. Believe it or not but not ALL SCIENCE is for clinical use! A lot of science is just.... to do science. Having a successful drug is not the end goal. I also don't believe any scientists would say that mice are the perfect model. But there are so many options when it comes to genetic manipulation in mice and they are more accessible. I work at a clinical lab in Canada and due to regulations we can't purchase human blood. How are we supposed to do research if we can't use mice? Science is flawed in so so many ways. I really wish the topic of funding or experimental design were discussed instead of this. Seeing how poorly researched this video was it also makes me wonder about the credibility of its previous episodes.

[@DrWh1teCat]

At the risk of being pedantic, choice of test subject is a part of experimental design.

[@Bluegrowlithe]

Is it just me or are most of adam ruins everything video filled with false information or things that are half right

[@newtextdocument]

That could be true but he does point out a bunch of valid points in them. Like how about we change the system instead of changing the subject? Use humans for testing on the big, bad bugs so research could be faster.

[@Janenba]

Sounds like you should probably fight and lobby to get a few laws changed.

[@doms.6701]

Are you offering to be a test subject? If not, then it is best not to ask others to do it. Besides, dead mice are easier to explain than dead humans. There are steps to testing drugs. It is not a cosmetic company. Meds can kill if not properly tested which requires an inexpensive test subject. Having humans would cost more and slow the process.

[@Goole1947]

No scientist or science student thinks that, testing on rodents Is practically the same as testing on humans. That is literally the most stupid phrase you could say, you can't extrapolate results from animals and then create not only a correlation but a causal link with humans. SHAKE MY HEAD ADAM!!

[@rstlesswarrior]

That is if it comes to successful cures. Considering the deadliness of chemical compounds rodents are pretty much identical to humans. Even if the success rate of finding a working cure is 0%. The success rate of ruling out possibly deadly ones is nearly 100%.

[@christopherweaver9543]

Adam pointed out that case where people were sent to the hospital but that was a long ass time ago when we were fairly new to the medical field.

[@Goole1947]

But she shouldn't be a student, you're taught at the lowest level of science and common sense that you can't compare studies of humans and animals directly. You have to work up the hierarchy, e.g Mice then another mammal etc then finally human trials.

[@stoveapple]

I love the Pinky and The Brain reference in this episode.

[@lbpletka]

The video also doesn't mention that some "strains" of mice have actually been patented by entities (we'll use the Harvard mice for example) and go for over $400/mouse. For a relevant study to be conducted, they would need a huge number of mice in order to be able to run the necessary tests and save or the margin of error. This drives up the costs of research and in turn the costs of the resulting medicines and treatments.

[@ThroughOurLensPodcast]

We should take Bikini Bottom, and push it somewhere else.

[@gamerman2078]

Lure ok

[@newtextdocument]

Alright. What should we push it with?

[@ThroughOurLensPodcast]

A push stick

[@ElrobertosuperioESA]

Blossom Utonium hello

[@ElrobertosuperioESA]

Blossom Utonium why you everywhere

[@k9px]

First second and i'm already at odds with this video... NO ONE CLAIMS THAT TESTING ON RODENTS IS THE SAME THING AS HUMAN TESTING!!! Animal testing is just the first step towards human trials!

[@alexgregg1058]

It's called hyperbole, thus the tone of it. I swear you can't use nuance with people anymore.

[@TheTwistednerve]

Does testing on rodents have to show good results before human trials can start? If that's the case then if a new drug works for humans but kills mice then it will never reach human trials phase.

[@grrr1351]

And organs failure.

[@CorinnaAtHome]

What's the point of they aren't similar enough though?

[@CorinnaAtHome]

Rustam Miftakhutdinov yes.

[@sethscarboro2620]

"Here's another tip. If you put me in your bike spoke it will sound like a motorcycle. Brbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbrbr." Lol. Fucking killed me.

[@justneedstowork]

Unrelated but I love how this show gets all these like genius specialist and professionals to say the horniest lines

[@papab1esss]

but you can't just start testing everything on human subjects? I'm against animal testing but what do you expect them to do

[@LulitaInPita]

ikr??

[@beans_avi9382]

Test on deathrow inmates

[@KalaxusMageslayer]

Germany tests evrything on volunteer inmates. They even used inmates as crash test dummies all voluntary as well

[@goonnscream]

Kalaxus Mageslayer I don't know where you got this from... pretty sure it's bullshit.

[@KalaxusMageslayer]

Documentaries they made us watch in 95'. The practice may have ended long time ago but was occurring in the 90's at least

[@GraceMotley]

What should we test on instead of mice, then?

[@kylehudsons]

humans

[@kranganekar]

Hobos

[@andresrincon752]

Pigs

[@jorgepadua5802]

Kyle Hudsons the point of testing on mice is to prevent as many humans as possible from dying.

[@nordicnostalgia8106]

How about computer simulations?

[@cecilioacc]

cards thanks owner for being kept in great condition, then recommends to be used to make a bike sound like a motorcycle, incredible

[@ricardovazquez3050]

The doctor in the end is such a good sport.

[@MrGearOfficial]

This mice says it all.

[@manhattanvi]

MrGear you psychopath

[@hey_bebop]

Remember glowing hot knife? Yeah me neither

[@nathantamari2]

OMG XD

[@gagahghifariprasetyo8755]

mr gear

[@Preposter]

1000 DEGREE KNIFE VS. MOUSE *Turns out to be clickbait and cuts open a computer mouse*

[@mreeeeeegf]

As a neuro scientist ACTUALLY WORKING IN THE FIELD, this whole video is emberassing. No one says "rodents share so and so much DNA, so we're alike" No one says "mice trials are practically human trials" The 80% figure is hugely misleading It's not supposed to tell us if drugs work on humans! It's supposed to tell us whether vertebrats can metabolize these drugs at all here in germany mice are super highly regulated, basically the same as higher mammals. we are "wasting ressources on mice" is the dumbest statement of them all, holy shit adam, please stay away from actual science

[@morbidblade]

Adam ruins public understanding of fields of science people spend years on to master.

[@scler8453]

100% agree

[@sup4744]

I'm pretty sure the show is aware you guys are aware of that but I don't think you guys realize that this is a misconception to the general public

[@rstlesswarrior]

Nadia Jones the public isn't capable to understand all the intricacies of scientific work. For all intents and purposes mice are very very similar.

[@MeCooper]

Hi, I am a 31 year old from the general public. I have never worked in a lab or anything even close to it. Left high school in the 11th grade and haven't ever studied biology. Simple fact is, The only reason someone would believe something as stupid as that misleading 80% claim is because someone told them or they just assumed it. Those people are either very stupid or very young and not a representation of the general public. If it is something you believed for no apparent reason... Congratulations, You're not part of the general public, You're part of the minority of idiots of the world and a high school dropout is more educated than you... Somehow... Without actually doing any research on the subject.

[@dudepool7530]

"If you put me in your bicycle spoke, it will sound like a motorcycle! vrrrrrrrrrm!" lmao! Genius!

[@bafoonerbafoon]

I just realized that the mouse design in this video is basically pinky and the brain from Animaniacs

[@UnPhayzable]

Those mice have better fashion sense than me

[@wavegroup1]

UnPhayzable i have seen your comments every fucking where

[@newtextdocument]

I wish I was as dapper as Adam.

[@milkr0460]

UnPhayzable lol

[@shelleymcrae514]

looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllll. xD

[@frickinhecker2610]

UnPhayzable naked

[@felixmiller9531]

Okay no mice then, Please use adam and the production crews as a lab subject

[@jonathandpg6115]

this. I always hate how he is so interested in shocking people he uses real information with the wrong conclusion. It is like he always happens to “misunderstand” the facts

[@demon_blanc3]

@@jonathandpg6115 the problem is he speaks not enough about the solution

[@bluephoenix663]

Wow...they made a lot more episodes than last time I was here

[@theenigma6160]

The "end card" was the best. XD

[@Michaelonyoutub]

the problem is, what is the alternative? you cant jump to human testing, and many other animals are more expensive to maintain then mice

[@JesterAzazel]

As they said, the alternative is overthrowing the entire system, which isn't something you just do, so they're stuck with mouse testing for now.

[@CatgarooGaming]

If human testing were legal, we'd make gigantic gains in medical science.

[@jumbo6498]

When a person used the word "science" as a buzzword, you can pretty much assume they're not from a scientific field and can't come up with more specific terminology for what they're trying to talk about on their own.

[@mechicanalnumbariaro]

that some great science right there.

[@dkfullilove]

I feel old for knowing this animation reference

[@BrynnofStone]

In the 2006 study, the problem wasn't the reactions to it, it was the speed at which the medicine was given. The subjects in that study were given the drug 30x faster than the mice, and all at once instead of in multiple doses. Human trials were recreated later in 2011 and given to the subjects a lot slower and it worked fine

[@galennedelchev9140]

The cancer drug one is not correct. They actually had much bigger doses than mice in relevance

[@Silver-Freddy]

Building off of this the FDA is unlikely to approve any cancer cure anyways because of the astronomical amount of money made from treating cancer. 5 or 6 applications for potential "cures" have already been swept away. Pharmacutical lobbying is too powerful

[@Not-pu4sn]

Pretty much half the important sources are 3 (almost 4) years old

[@Zerendipia]

Here is one quick thing you can do to check if a conspiracy is probably not true. Ask yourself, does this affect rich people the same as poor people? if yes then its highly unlikely its true.

[@thesalazar7328]

Chase Matthews Do you know why there is not a cure for cancer yet? Because there is a fuckton of different types of cancer with different tipes of treatment.

[@PronomicalArtist]

@Chase Matthews you know cancer is able to adapt right, that's why its so hard to kill.

[@malig1012]

Inaccurate. Testing on mice concerning brain research is very well applicable to the human brain and has let to a lot of valuable findings (e.g. Grid cells => Noble Prize)

[@CarBroke.PhoneYes]

Sources?

[@jackyzhu9761]

Gimme your sources or else I will spam your comment thread with nothing but *_”This comment is inaccurate. Please spam it”_*

[@zeprhix399]

Wheres your proof boomer

[@TheForrestHump]

At least College Humor's episodes can present the full idea in a short clip unlike the other channel

[@savenetneutralityanti-repu7029]

The Pinky and the Brain segments of Animaniacs were a staple of my childhood as an '80's and '90's kid.

[@derekbryceson7080]

So tests on mice are still extremely useful and have probably saved millions of lives. They're just not as useful and a little more problematic than a few people believe. gotcha...

[@rev2505]

Why do I get the sense that this video is saying "stop testing on mice, do those dangerous tests on how humans."

[@morbidblade]

Talk to an environmentalist long enough, and eventually, they will reveal their contempt for humans.

[@TheVanillaChapstick]

Brain brain brain brain. What are we going to do today Brain. The same thing we plan to do every day, take over the world!

[@salmanimranshareef]

Loved the Pinky and Brian section!

[@gromero7691]

This gave me a nice dose of nostalgia

[@JesterAzazel]

Next episode: "Literally everyone thinks the sky is green. I'm about to drop some truth bombs." *whistling intensifies*

[@TheKalluto]

20% is a lot you know. Statistics can be tricky sometimes if you are not actually in the field

[@yieldmotherculture]

Thank you! I used to research Lupus and there has been 1 new drug approved in the last 50 years to treat the disease. 20% is pretty good in my opinion. Anything that gives us a leg up on treating humans is worth it.

[@aclydefrog7886]

TheKalluto yeah I know I was screaming that the whole time, I don't hear an alternative from this guy that seems viable Almost sounds like they're saying to test on humans instead at the end there lol

[@DrevikkDrevik]

I remember someone at the medical school (where I worked at the time) that things will not get approved for humans until it passes mouse, dog, pig, and chimpanzee testing

[@massivecowbreakout7555]

Are pigs are more closely related to humans than dogs? They are both mammals with roughly equal intelligence and almost the same size.

[@shinethief3785]

All these very intelligent, well informed and highly trained specialist being a bit silly for a bit that is overall mediocre really makes makes me happy. You can have 3 Doctorates and play a talking training card of yourself. So much respect.

[@florinivan6907]

Few scientists are street smart. Most are somewhere on the autism spectrum. Nothing too serious but they're definitely the kind of people a guy like Adam can manipulate to appear on his show.

[@justuslm]

The funny thing is that we are probably a lot more capable to cure mouse cancer than human cancer. If you are a mouse owner, that's good news.

[@DrWh1teCat]

The oncological drugs available in veterinary medicine are almost exclusively human oncology drugs, since pharmaceutical companies will make much more money on human medicine from the drastically inflated price of human medicine. Since veterinarians are stuck using human oncology agents, there isn't a benefit to the mouse cancer patients either, especially considering pet mice come from the lab mice lines and develop cancer more readily than wild-type mice. Besides, very few mouse owners would put forth the money to pursue cancer treatment anyway.

[@newtextdocument]

True. Once we solve mice cancer, we can work on making mice immortal. :)

[@newtextdocument]

With super mini, mice nanobots.

[@SuperDuckyWho]

Mice also have a much weaker blood brain barrier so that's not as hard to do...

[@scler8453]

We also have far more tools for mice. We can't really knock in a trans-gene at the blastula stage with humans...yet

[@ComicBooksPlus]

I like Adam and I like Hot Date but it's seems like 95.8% of this channel is just them now. I had the mice run the numbers

[@william41017]

Comic Books Plus according to my mice it's actually 93.72%

[@ComicBooksPlus]

Well at least it wasn't 42

[@Kai_Mercer]

What about all the skits in between when they upload these

[@MeCooper]

I'd like this more if it was... Accurate. At this point most of the show is just putting as much as possible out of context in order to sound educated... Might as well be going "1 + 1 = a window". I mean you can make it look right by throwing away context... But it isn't actually right.

[@ComicBooksPlus]

I'm not going to say you're wrong Me Cooper, just welcome to the reply section of a comment. I think you made a wrong turn a mile back and clicked reply instead of "add public comment." but you know it windows

[@danieljames1868]

"Thanks for keeping me in mint condition. Now, put me in the spokes of your bike!"

[@madmachanicest9955]

The original conception for miles testing back in the 1800s. Was that the specific loud mouse could be one specifically identical genetic line. Which made them useful for basic pharmaceutical testing. They were supposed to be the first step and not the last one.

[@thetruth3068]

so what's the solution? did you expect scientist to start using human for a test subject?

[@bboysoulzero]

start with adam first

[@redMrCrayon]

Somewhere a very old german man in a wheel chair is saying Das es a guten idea yah?

[@newtextdocument]

Human test subjects wouldn't be morally wrong if it was controlled properly. It is probably a much better idea. If their was an "evil" company that killed 10 million people but discovered the cure for most diseases and death, I would most likely view them as a hero. Sacrifice for a greater cause. Isn't that what most super hero movies go for these days?

[@DasPartyPooper]

Yeah good luck finding people who's willing to test a drug that haven't even been tested on animals first

[@anthonyjohnson9946]

DasParty Pooper If they paid better, you never know.

[@dujuan9646]

homeless people have nothing to lose lol if you give them a 1000 bucks they'll gladly do it

[@anthonyjohnson9946]

There a research studies center across the street from my job that pay up to $5000 for people willing to stay there for weeks at a time doing studies.

[@Advance493]

Human tests subjects are actually a career. You can get paid (idk how much) but their is uncertainty and danger. Eminem: "Now it's back to the lab again."

[@benjaminherrera1987]

The video is about wasting resources testing on mice and you suggest spending 1000 dolars for each experiment subject in the first stage of development, even ignoring the ethical implications and how homeless people are awful test subjects that's not the brightest idea

[@nicholasmartin2544]

The reference to that old show!!!:D

[@LoveAndSnapple]

I love the Pinkie and the Brain music in the background, lol.

[@majinjason]

Everybody knows rodent testing isn't perfect but we have to start somewhere. And for some reason people care very little about mice. Sure testing on larger closer animals would be best but when we use chimps psychopaths hurt humans to free them. You can't test on humans because do no harm/lawsuits. Rabbit and other small animals are too cute and cuddley and are no more effective. Mice are quick to breed and easy to store. Let us test on chimps and the results would be better but people would cry.

[@majinjason]

Friday We Are Awesome I totally feel you on the chimps. I feel the same way about mice actually but we have to test on something or nothing will get done. I just didn't like how Adam was talking like their were SO many better options. And that Dr they had on is insane if she thinks anyone will let her experiment on people just cuz.

[@08aoc]

Jason Mckay maybe you should do research in Asia where theres no such things as Animal welfare or ethics.

[@majinjason]

08aoc why would I research that? I'm for better methods and friendlier testing, I'm just more for results. Hopefully one day we'll live in a world where all tests are prefect and simulated. But for now mice are the best we got for many various reasons.

[@freddyschwoerer]

Her name is an anagram of her last name!

[@mathieuleader8601]

Palandrome

[@strawberryking8965]

Mathieu Leader no its an anagram

[@Kascaded]

Mathieu Leader how can you be so confidently wrong?

[@CosmicFist]

Not only that, how can you spell it incorrectly too?

[@nekocamii]

good eye

[@scarysara9364]

'Adam' parodying "Pinky and the Brain"? The man just got 100 times more cooler then he already was! = D

[@josephhahn4713]

That pinky and the brain reference though 🤣🤣

[@fabske_1234]

That girl should have known all of that already. I mean, yeah, I haven't seen the episode, but she looks like she really should have been aware of those already. It's not like they don't teach that mice are in no way representative of a human test subject. They are a good first step though, because what kills a mouse has a good chance of killing a human as well.

[@KadenceX]

Leigh anne... is that u?

[@BlightCosmos]

Once again, scientists has cured all mice illnesses

[@genevieve2106]

*adam appears out of nowhere* *everyone sighs*

[@tzztipheneas]

The cancer drug, that nearly killed the patience was acctually pretty much the same dosage (The highest dosage that mice went trough without problems), compared to size the size of mice, but was injected alot fast than on mice. A few years later the same drug got tested in russia, with much smaller dosage and a much bigger injection time.

[@mozigyar]

Tzzti Tzzti and the result was? You kinda left the thought in half

[@abdelmonemmudawi6005]

what was the result?

[@tzztipheneas]

I don't really remember, but I think there was atleast some sort of success. But more important is that the patiences didn't get any harm. The problem in the first test was, that the immunesystems of the paitences where blocking the huge impact of the drug, which was so exhausting for the bodies that organs started to fail. Needless to say, that I'm not an expert, but that is what I remember of a pretty well made documentary I saw a few weeks ago.

[@flamethekid]

L

[@nopewhy6047]

J Young Pharm. 2010 Jul-Sep; 2(3): 332-336. doi: 10.4103/0975-1483.66810 It was Theralizumab, and was trialed on primates and showed some T-cell proliferation (which might lead to danger) and researchers knew it and acknowledged those patients. It was just a critical last step failure caused by hasted procedure, they did not properly calculate the right dose and injected too fast

[@NerdyGeeky]

I love this show but I wasn't keen on this part tbh. No scientist thinks mice are directly analogous to humans, it's very well known that they aren't. However, they have similarities which make them a useful organism to monitor drug interactions. You cannot monitor drug interaction in human cell culture. We wish we could, it's easier and cheaper! But you need a live, complex organism. This also only focussed on mice and made no mention of other model organisms, such as the Drosophila melanogaster fruit fly, which is use extensively in genetics and evolutionary developmental biology. Also, this section posed no real alternative to mice testing. It's not enough to say "we shouldn't use these" without proposing a viable, complex organism as an alternative. The reason mice are used is because they are the highest organism, close enough to humans, which can be used before serious ethical problems occur. I feel bad for the mice but that's why. It's also been said a lot in the comments but mice are the first of many, many trials ultimately leading to human trials. This also negated to tell all the amazing work coming from mice research which makes this argument extremely bias and does not convey all the information. Instead, this picked out a couple badly designed experiments for justification. Look into any research and you'll find a few very badly designed experiments. I felt this section was a bit poor and subpar for this usually very excellent show.

[@agusti92]

NerdyGeeky Yes, scrolled down too much to find some love to the drosophilas.

[@_Balaur_]

Extract what is useful, excrete what is not, add to it your own unique touch

[@JoGyatto]

I looked at the tv and saw an ad for the tv show

[@stagnantfox3027]

Erm, I feel like I am a average person and I have never assumed that lab mice are the same as humans. Sorry but testing on lab mice still has contributed to a lot of our previous medicine. I still feel bad for living creatures being used as experimental objects but there kind of is no other way. Would you contribute to being tested on with deadly results?

[@newtextdocument]

If I die during testing and it found the cure for a disease then sign me up. If people are so selfish that they wouldn't sacrifice their own life for a better future for our children than what are we living for? Just to get fat off of the stupid industry that somehow is still allowed to sell products that creates the biggest cause of death in America.

[@ceasefire2825]

U sir gave an excellent idea.a race of humans bred especially for the very purpose of testing?

[@newtextdocument]

Willing people who would let certain parts of their body be experimented on for compensation. It could help speed up certain parts of research. We can just avoid using lethal experiments on humans while we test some random methods on volunteers.

[@jonathanmadsen1223]

I havent researched the incident you speak of with the cancer-treating drug, but the testing of medical drugs don't go directly from mice to humans like you are indicating. Normally there are a lot more steps to the approval of medical drugs (testing the drug on animals closer and closer related to humans). Sure, mice arent related that well to humans, but it's a start and since its unethical to test directly on humans, what do you suggest we should do instead? The method might not be as efficient as possible, but it is a lot safer (for humans).

[@KalaxusMageslayer]

jonathan madsen correct, its mice then up the food chain until humans. Animal rights groups have helped cut some of the red tape allowing for fewer studies taken before human testing, but its still a process.

[@thomasrichardson5425]

20% of trials generalising well is actually pretty good when you consider how trivially cheap mice are compared to any other alternative

[@manasmitjena5593]

Some points to note: Mouse share 97.5% similarity with Human DNA. The 2.5% doees make a difference but some protein and Enzymes are ghastly conservative in nature, and are pretty much the same as in Humans, for ex, Actin protein. These models are used for Hypothetical studiess along with to gauze the reaction of new drugs. You can create a Hyper-sensitive model to a particular drug and gauze the effect of the drug, if there are no side(harmful) reactions, then the chances of harmful reactions in Human is negligible. heLa cells are used for Cancer Research worldwide. Depending on type of experiment model organisms vary, Chimps are aslo used for experiment that involves drugs meant for humans.

[@lochnessmonster03]

Although Animal Welfare Act doesn't cover rodents, there are other crediting associations oversight. There are AAALAC and IACUC on-site. To claim researcher can do whatever they want is blatantly false. Given that there are a lot more things researchers can do to improve animal welfare for mice (ie. Enrichments) without compromising test results, it doesn't mean these animals are tortured. Pain studies and studies that involve painful procedures have very strict protocols. This video definitely "ruined" lab mice by giving people the wrong information

[@varelovissa]

yeah we go to ALOT of trouble to make sure the mice are never in pain or even scared. this video is so wrong

[@JimmyNewCakes]

Also can confirm that in a major clinical trial company I work for, we take a lot of steps to take good care of all of our lab animals, including the mice. Even if you're not sold on that, think of it in the not so altruistic perspective: Stressed animals produce bad results. Bad results cost lots of money. Seems that everyone is better off if the animals are well treated!

[@infinite5377]

Is... Is that what you've taken from the video?

[@CouchLord1]

I should might as well volunteer for human clinical trials, since loch just gave me cancer by taking the gag portion of the presentation and making it the focal point.

[@hmmyesinteresting]

Kinda feelin bad for mice. But at least science keeps them contained, amirite?

[@tobylacey7613]

hmm yes interesting you are always right my lord

[@raimi4314]

no. pls just go on twitch or something

[@oliveoconnor5589]

hmm yes interesting ? they breed them, without these test there wouldnt be that many mice

[@exzz1487]

Well i gues you rule youtube now

[@nahsnag9930]

Laiza??

[@Garium87]

What the expert at the end suggested as an alternative is already common practice. Almost every cancer experiment uses in vivo *and* in vitro methods. Both have to be used because cells outside of an organism behave differently than cells in a living organism. I wonder how many scientists they had to ask to find someone who was willing to tell them what they wanted to hear.

[@Cblh07]

Adam is my hero now