Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmbche | Hacker News Reader

Why do this science? Are we just feeding mice plastic for kicks? Like yeah who would've known that nanoparticles pass the blood brain barrier - who cares?

Can't we just do some scans/biopsies on humans to assess if we have plastic in the brain and start from there?

How does this experiment further anything? I'm kind of appalled that this is some people's job - it's pointless, stupid and cruel, and done by scientists who get paid the big bucks doing it.

I know I'm a little ranty - but I'm serious. Why do people do these experiments?

View on HN

Did I miss something about scientists getting payed the big bucks suddenly?

Some do, but they work in advertising.

Genetics is hot right now, and probably will be for decades.

Compared to someone stocking shelves at minimum wage? And with benefits, job security, etc.

I'm sorry if "the big bucks" sounded like over 100 000$ for every single one of them.

Some guy still got a grant to feed mice plastic, didn't he?

Scientists don’t have particularly great job security as a group.

The scientists I know are working for the government and univerities, and are pretty well set. What are you alluding to?

You do these proofs of concept to prove the problem exists. Until there is hard science it can be hard to spur action. I could say, ya know, I believe that if any of these so called microplastics (subtly doubting existence) they would not be absorbed by my body and will simply exit may waste chute (doubting the problem). Now you can say, ya know, akssssssssshuallly studies show that yadda yadda. And then I could say ya IN MICE! And then you could be like oh ya fucko and start forcefeeding me shredded up milk cartons until you dissect my brain a few hours later. Now you've gone ahead and reproduced OP document and thats called SCIENCE!

I understand, but this experiment doesn't prove that the problem exists - I don't know if humans have plastics in their brain.

I'm not a scientist, but couldn't we check cadavers for microplastics? Wouldn't that be more concluent?

You know, you too can search the internet. Microplastics are in human blood: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/mar/24/micropla...

The study in question found microplastic in 80% of test subjects. The presence of these particles is likely not new, just that it's been difficult to detect them until now. Buckle up, we're not likely to find out that they give us superhuman abilities.

I'm sorry - I'm refering to the experiment. I personally know that there are microplastics in our blood - I'm saying that this experiment is redundant, as your link arguably supports.

I'm obviously not arguing that microplastics aren't an issue - I'm saying we didn't have to force feed mice plastic to get actionable data to solve the issue.

I have not idea what you are arguing anymore, and frankly, it's just a lot of noise at this point. The way we figure out stuff is with experiments, sometimes experiments on animals. You're out here "no need for experiments, this is a waste of money, blah blah blah unethical, I could have told you that, everyone's embezzling money from the government, those rich scientists huminah huminah." I mean, I could argue these points, or you could just stop trolling.

I think there is too little oversight on animal testing and that this experiment is a flagrant example of that. While I understand that some experiment "require" animal testing, I don't see how this one arguably does.

That's not been argued, we're arguing the salaries of the scientists instead - not certain why.

I haven't talked abount embezzeling anything or that experiments are useless - just that I can't see why this one was done, and it makes me weary of most experiments on animals, even more than I normaly am, as they seem much more arbitrary than I would have liked to think.

Thanks for your insight and snarkiness anyway.

We can do that as well, and I am confident some studies are in the works. But we still need to understand what is happening, which require controlled environments and simplified situations where we can study the effect of each parameter one after another.

One does not prevent the other.

I see. I think I'm arguing that we should be more critical of animal studies, as I'm having problems seeing what usable data was extracted from these mice that wouldn't have been found some other way.

Anyhoot!

> we should be more critical of animal studies

Definitely! That is completely legitimate and suffering must be avoided as much as possible.

But sometimes such experiments are necessary and cannot be easily avoided. The alternatives are not understanding what is happening (which is ok if the thing is harmless; I don’t think that this is the default hypothesis for nano-plastics), or doing the analytical experiments in humans.

> I'm having problems seeing what usable data was extracted from these mice that wouldn't have been found some other way

Off the top of my head, in this setting we control exactly the amount of particles and their size, which is important to assess the mechanisms by which they penetrate the tissues.

Looking at dead humans has a huge sampling bias (people giving their body are not representative of the population as a whole), and we have no idea about the kind of particles they were exposed to, or of any other factor that could affect what we want to quantify. Maybe some kinds of substances can increase or decrease penetration rates (things that affect blood pressure, for example). In a controlled setting, we know that all mice were exposed to exactly the same conditions.

No no I'm the one who was supposed to rebut with "In MICE!"

You're right about the cadavers! Maybe such a study exists and we could skip ahead to agreeing its a problem or perhaps we enter the next phase: "are we sure these plastics in my brain are akshuuuaallly a problem, perhaps they are making me less stupid and more healthy MR SCIENTISTS"

Sure, you first, open up your skull for brain biopsy.

Lab animals are kept in regulated conditions (illegal/unethical behavior under the radar aside), experiments are vetted by institutional review boards, and they live pretty decent lives. There is mandatory sensory stimulation, handling, and socialization.

If you want to get rid of animal models, kiss basically every medical intervention goodbye (drugs, prosthetics, procedures, surgery).

Eh - I don't think that the mice force fed plastic has a pretty decent life, does it? While all the things you write are claims, I doubt you will be very convinced of them if you do any research on the subject. All undercover investigation in labs showed blatant mistreatment in every single case, which I am comfortable with generalising to most other labs, unless proven otherwise.

As for having my brain biopsied - I'm not the one arguing that we have microplastics in the brain. The scientists had this hypothesis, and killed some mice to prove it. I'm saying that they shouldn'y have been allowed to, since the result does not further anything about plastics in human brains, and other options seemed both to provide better human data and be more ethical.

It‘s not more ethical to do research on humans, unless you can be sure these humans do not participate in experiments due to their economic situation.

Anecdotal example: I have met a british guy who makes a living from participating in medical trials. He makes about 10-20k per year if I remember correctly.

I think I'm comfortable arguing that it is much more ethical to do voluntary human testing, as humans will always have more options than animals in cages - unless we are talking something like human trafficking, but I don't think that's what you are bringing up.

As for your example, I too knew someone living a pretty terrible life doing trials for a living, that died sadly. While I understand your point, I'm sure you can think of many avenues for this person to make a living without doing trials - i.e. stocking shelves, working a warehouse, janitorial work, service, etc. If they are under precarious circumstences, there are many options still.

> and done by scientists who get paid the big bucks doing it.

Uh, no. Grad students make bupkiss while they could easily pull six figures after completing a bachelor's. They do this because they are a curious, masochistic bunch who find working on important problems to be a worthwhile endeavor.

Is it only grad students or is there a lead researcher that asks for grants and such? I'm not a scientist myself, the ones I know are working for the governenent or are professors. While they are not rich they are much better off than the average person.

And is feeding mice plastic and then seeing if they have plastic in them a worty endeavour? It's fine because they aren't paid as well as if they were working corporate?

I'm also aware that a lot of people have to tailor their doctorate work to their advisor, meaning it could very well be that no one doing this experiment was "curious" or believing that it was "important".

I'm sure you know many bitter PhD's that studied things they find utterly pointless today - I had many teachers laughing at their own peer reviewed work.

Like how much is a grad student actually making per year? As a student that will be able to get a PhD or post afterward?

It's under $40k, typically.

Here's data for CMU:

https://www.cmu.edu/stugov/gsa/campus-advocacy/stipend-repor...

Thanks for the link, I had looked and in canada it's even lower, at 29,000k for a biology grad student.

While it's not rich people's money, it's more than enough to be very comfortable, especially compared to someone working minimum wage.

I don't feel bad being very critical of how their time is being spent - especially here.

Have to agree with you. We screwed up the environment, then experiment on innocent creatures to prove we've screwed it up.

Not to say there isn't good science being done, but I do question the ethics.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com