In article <6rjs5s$mdd$1 at ostrich.cybercomm.net>,
Jennifer Ann Petersen <jennifer at jenniferpetersen.com> wrote:
>Beverly Erlebacher wrote in message
><1998Aug20.123428.29969 at jarvis.cs.toronto.edu>...
>>I don't remember if the paper said, but the important point is that the
>>life span was no different from that of the mouse strain that the knock-out
>>line originated from. I don't know what lab mice normally die of. Boredom?
>>Yes, the fact that life span remained the same is significant.
>Since the study was to see if death came later, I thought the cause of death
>would somehow be important. It would seem that in a study such as this,
>saying "I dunno, they just up 'n died" ignores an important piece of
>information. Did they all explode? Did they write tiny suicide notes? That
>would give credence to the boredom theory ;-) Did any of them develop
>cancer?
Like I said, I don't remember what the paper said about cause of death
or incidence of cancer. It was 8 or 10 years ago, and I've read a lot
of other papers since. Cause of death may have been described and analysed
in detail. I suggest you look the paper up and read it yourself.
