>>13297338>If Bret is right, it's Nobel prize worthy.How? At best, all he's saying is that the data coming from one set of test animals may be flawed. That doesn't say much about the degree of how flawed it is, which could ultimately be minor, nor how much damage it causes to the overall testing process, which could be next to none since other animals are used for testing. On top of all of this, while he may be the first to talk about this, I remain skeptical. I myself haven't done a literature search, so for all I know, he could be talking out of his ass and there were people discussing these things years before he brought it up. Hell, the fact that there are multiple lab animals for testing and many stages of testing already makes me think that people have already designed the system to be robust against these sorts of issues that may be specific to testing one particular animal type. Hell, even if he was correct, I fail to see how it is Nobel worthy. The Nobel prize is usually awarded for a new discovery or invention, I've literally never seen it awarded just because someone pointed out flawed methodology.
