Its so stupid.. (useless scientific experiements)?

Question

anybody else think that its so pathetic how scientists research and spend money on such useless research.
why in the world would we need super mice for f. sakes..
what happaned to the third world countries.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20071102/twl-mighty-mouse-key-to-a-human-breakthr-3fd0ae9.html

aren't we fine the way we are and acheived enough...
whats the point of more research to help people last longer when others in less devloped countries die and starve.

and would people want mice pests to be more immune.

Answer 1

It is a shame you found such a piece of poor writing to explain the purpose of the research. There are many news reports that are so poorly done they distort and cheapen the subject they discuss. They are written for shock value with no intent to educate.
This research on PEPCK-C, the gene used in the mice, will have benefit in the near future as it is key in studying diabetes & obesity, both serious health issues.
Future areas to look at include the possible link between exercise and cancer, building on previous studies showing exercise may reduce cancer.
The role of calories in metabolism. It may be not what you eat as much as what you do that changes metabolism.
No system in the body works alone. The brain and muscles interplay in complex patterns. The behavior changes linked to metabolic shifts may open doors to understanding this.
There are many people suffering muscle wasting diseases that may someday receive treatments alleviating or curing them.

Original paper
www.jbc.org/cgi/reprint/M706127200v1.pdf


The greatest impact of this work is that a single gene should have such an enormous phenotypic shift. This implies this gene is extremely critical. These are knockin mice that have additional expression of the protein delivered to their muscles. They experienced 9 units/gram skeletal muscle compared to 0.08 units/gram in the natural mice. This is over 100x the natural levels to achieve this result.
Normal expression of this gene is in both carbohydrate and lipid metabolism primarily in the liver, kidney, adipose tissue, and the mammary gland. Under normal function it is down regulated by insulin and up regulated by glucagon in both liver and adipose tissue. So original research was focussed on diabetes. PEPCK-C is the rate-limiting enzyme in glyceroneogenesis. Overexpression of this gene in adipose tissue caused obesity. This last piece makes the results of over expression in muscle tissue much more remarkable. Localized expression of one gene shifts from obesity to stellar physical performance.
Well perhaps studies of nutrition metabolism have no immediate impact on dealing with third world health issues but eventually this may be key to understanding human metabolic shifts.

Answer 2

I for one do not think so. But then, I do realize that I have no clue what the real background of these experiments is. I do know from experience that the scientists are certainly not making super mice for the making of super mice sake. That's just what the tabloid media reports because YOU would yawn if they reported the facts.

So, if you have a point, you might want to make it AFTER reading the science papers of this research group and you might want to argue what is wrong with those results, rather than to judge what people do based on false reporting.

And if YOU have beef with the status of the developing world, YOU are absolutely welcome to dedicate YOUR life to raising living standards over there.

So how about less cheap science bashing and more eyebrow raising action for humanity on your side?

Tell you what: if you have a worthy cause, tell me about it, convince me that you need money to pursue it and I will send you a donation for that cause.

Deal?

Answer 3

No it's not useless. Mice are genetic models for humans, what we know about mice is likely true for that of humans to. Next time you even take medication or eat anything with chemicals in it has probably been tested on mice.

Ever been ill? Without mice models then we wouldn't know about the pathology / aetiology, and you'd be 6ft under.

What if we discovered the cure to sickle cell anemia or malaria or AIDS, how many people would that save. You need to look further ahead.

edit: No we're not fine as we are. Think of how many diseases there are? Next time one of your loved ones comes down with an excruciating painful and deadly disease, would you deny them the life-saving treatment that was potentially invented? Now instead of saving people on one continent, how about saving the billions of this planet and for the future generations to come.

And they have strict bio control. Besides, mice are the least of your worries when you look at the bacteria they create.

Answer 4

Just as a cautionary note - didn't your mother ever tell you not to believe everything you read in the papers? Papers tend to print things that may not be completely accurate, or be slanted in some way, unintentionally or on purpose. This also applies to web news...
Also, it might be useful to try not to assume that your knowledge and opinions are the best possible. It's barely conceivable (as unlikely as it is) that you may not know everything about what is 'useless' vs. 'useful'.
Hugs and kisses,
A Scientist

Answer 5

Hmm, people want to answer and then dump on you, how about that! :-(

Let me try to explain in a nutshell - biologists often study certain aspects of living organisms that may not seem worthwhile in and of itself, but as applied to the larger body of information being accumulated, it could be VERY important at some point in the future - even several generations from now.

Answer 6

Come back when you have even the slightest inkling of what science is and what it's about!
I am only alive today because in the past scientists conducted research that Luddites like you would have dismissed as useless!

Answer 7

I totally agree on this subject.
Their research is potinless, we do not need super-mice.
We need to help with the third world countries more!