> Are they bemoaning that science is being done

The reflexive "in mice" comments seem to be bemoaning how science is done.

As someone who has made several comments consisting entirely of “…in mice.”, let me assure you that the reflex only kicks in after reading the paper and noticing that the experimental subjects were exclusively mice.

The problem is not mice experiments on arxiv, the problem is posting those papers for broader dissemenation to the public, with titles suggesting to the public that cancer has been cured, without prominently pointing out that the experiments were not about cancer in humans.

▲

JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> problem is posting those papers for broader dissemenation to the public, with titles suggesting to the public that cancer has been cured

Fair enough. I'm thinking of cases where a good study that isn't turned into PR slop is dismissed because it was done in mice. Which is fine for most people. But not great if we're treating real science that way.

	▲	cwillu 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Dismissing good science is entirely the correct decision when the good science isn't ready for broad dissemination to the audience which it is being presented to.

▲

dyauspitr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I disagree. I think people understand studies have to begin in mice. It’s what the GP said. You can’t release those studies because there’s not a high enough confidence rate in what most people are interested in ie how it effect humans.

	▲	JumpCrisscross 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> You can’t release those studies because there’s not a high enough confidence rate in what most people are interested in ie how it effect humans This is science by ignoramus. It isn't how science works, at least not when it works at its best. Someone advocating for censoring science because it might be misread is not on the side of science.