A research hypothesis that fails to produce an improvement in the treatment of disease is also a useless failure ... not a practical use of anything.
Dredge, stay off those meat-crackers. They make you think stupid stuff.
There are no failures in any experiment in science. The results may not be as expected, and it's leaders may convey some disappointment, but like the Michelson–Morley "failures", null results speak volumes.
Think before you inset cracker, Dredge. This is a well known and well celebrated feature of science. When we get unexpected results, when we get "failures", we learn a great deal from these "mistakes". Some of our greatest discoveries were found after years of analysing "failed" experiments. We learn from our "unproductivity".
It seems you never acquired that skill. You keep making the same mistakes over and over ...
Medical research that fails to produce an improvement in the treatment of disease is a useless failure ...
And you keep getting stupider and stupider. Did you think at all before you bleated out that stupidity?
When a program of research "fails" to produce a miracle cure, how can you possibly know what offshoots might come from that research? Do you think the researchers just burn their notebooks and go home?
All science is built on what came before.
Come all of you cowboys all over this land, I'll teach you the law of the Ranger's Command: To hold a six shooter, and never to run As long as there's bullets in both of your guns. -- Woody Guthrie
You're digressing. The discussion is not about theorectical approaches to research ... it's about tangible benefits in the treatment of disease.
There's nothing "practical" about using a theoretical guide for medical research that's hitherto produced zero improvements in the treatment of disease.
"using common ancestry to come up with new hypotheses" Message 1077 as a research guide has not resulted in any medical benefits for anyone. So far that particular "guide" has proven blind and useless.
That is incorrect ... animal models are used bcoz they're genetically and physiologically similar to humans.
That's because of UCD.
The history of how they came to genetically and physiologically similar to humans is irrelevant to their utility.
It isn't irrelevant.
. Darwin’s description of “descent with modification” points to two aspects of evolution that can help us assess the matching between a prospective model species and its intended target. One is trees that represent the structure of phylogenetic relationships; the other is phenotypic traits, i.e. the unique characteristics of each species’ evolved biology and natural history. Mapping traits onto a phylogeny is the first step toward analyzing the source of similarities between a target and a potential model. Whether similar traits arise from shared ancestry or from adaptive convergence has important implications for what kinds of inferences can be justified, and for the likely translatability of findings. Evolution offers both a rich source of possible models, and guidance for choosing the best ones for a given purpose. Considering model choice from an evolutionary angle not only helps to answer the question “What species might be a good model for studying x?” but also suggests additional questions we should be asking to assess the utility of both potential and current models. Recognizing the diverse ways model organisms can function expands our search image as we seek species to study that can both extend general knowledge, and generate translatable insights relevant to human neurobiology and disease.
Selection of Models: Evolution and the Choice of Species for Translational Research - FullText - Brain, Behavior and Evolution 2019, Vol. 93, No. 2-3 - Karger Publishers