Don Smith

FYI To Ask Don's Army:

My suspicions have been confirmed!

I have long questioned the validity of the tests the anti-UVR segment of the dermatology community have conducted on "cloned" mice for several reasons.

1. The so-called studies were efforts to "prove" that exposure to UVR is bad for everyone.

2. Mice are not a "close" relative to humans and their use is only because they are cheap and convenient.

3. The "cloning" process itself has inherent problems.

An article in this weeks Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by Jaenisch, et al, provided ammunition to substantiate my concerns and to confirm my suspicions.

The Jaenisch article stated that cloned mice have "hundreds of abnormal genes" which "introduces genetic mutations" and this important study calls into question the validity of ALL studies conducted on mice.

How does one know that the "cancer" is caused by the toxin being studied or by the "genetic mutations" introduced by the cloning process itself?

The "bottom line" is that there is (1) now a valid scientific study questioning the validity of studies conducted with cloned mice, and, (2) the dermatology community themselves have finally "admitted" that there is a problem as the following statement shows.

"There is really no good animal model for skin cancer. The hairless (cloned) mouse is he best of a bunch of bad choices" and "...a lot of things that work in mice cannot be extrapolated to humans" according to Darrell Rigel, M.D., professor of dermatology at New York University and an "expert spokesman" for the American Academy of Dermatology (and no friend of our industry!).

So there we have it, folks. Studies conducted with mice are valid only to line the bottom of the "mouse house" cages!

Don

solarmeter

Never knew the hairless guys were clonned (like Dolly the sheep?). Thought they were just "bred" to be hairless, however that's done (bald mom and dad mouse).

Still think they should shine heat lamps with no UV on them and see what "developes".