In February, the New York Times featured a story covering the findings of a recent and somewhat controversial Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) study that suggested that some mouse models of disease may not recapitulate the actual human disease. Three physician scientists, all from top notch academic institutions and organizations, were disappointed by the New York Times article, and composed a riveting response. Their take home message? That "experimental research using mice is critical to building knowledge and to translating this knowledge into medical practice in a manner that minimizes risk to human beings." The scientists’ response echoes and supports Prize4Life’s position on using mouse models for ALS research — there is extreme value in well-designed preclinical studies (if you are wondering what are some of the factors to consider when designing ALS preclinical studies, check out our "Working with ALS Mice" manual).This response is a must read for anyone interested in the controversy perennially swirling around mouse models of ALS. Click here to read it now.
Copyright © 1996–2017 Biomedical Research Forum, LLC. All Rights Reserved.Share this: