Ban the Term Animal ‘Model’

I have always been somewhat bemused by the term ‘animal model’ in research. As an animal lover and admirer, I have always bridled at the harsh denigration of animals to mere ‘models’ for our species.

Recently I read about the Arizona Cancer Evolution center, which compares and contrasts findings across the animal kingdom as a whole to learn generalisable lessons.[1] One interesting example concerns Peto’s paradox. This paradox turns on the observation that larger animals do not have higher cancer rates than humans, despite having many more cells. The resolution to the paradox comes from the finding that very large animals have a higher proportion of DNA repair and apoptosis genes. These genes help reduce somatic mutations or their effects, and compensate for the greater a priori risk.

Using animals as mere ‘models’ for humans is not only speciesist, but non-scientific. I hope we can get rid of this patronising and scientifically limiting term once and for all.

— Richard Lilford, CLAHRC WM Director

Reference:

  1. Tollis M, Boddy AM, Maley CC. Peto’s Paradox: how has evolution solved the problem of cancer prevention? BMC Biol. 2017; 15: 60.

2 thoughts on “Ban the Term Animal ‘Model’”

  1. For those of you who are intrigued by the Peto paradox, I can highly recommend this paper on evolutionary biology that discusses it in relation to cancer biology. Nunney L, Maley CC, Breen
    M, Hochberg ME, Schiffman JD. 2015 Peto’s
    paradox and the promise of comparative
    oncology. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 370: 20140177.
    http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0177

  2. Richard
    All lovers of animals and of interesting questions about intelligence should read Frans de Waal’s book Are We Smart Enough to Know How Smart Animals are

Leave a comment