Commentary on Viewpoint “Human experimentation: No accurate, quantitative data?”

Abstract

LETTERS TO THE EDITORCommentary on Viewpoint “Human experimentation: No accurate, quantitative data?”George A. OrdwayGeorge A. OrdwayPublished Online:01 Mar 2007https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01399.2006MoreSectionsPDF (24 KB)Download PDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesGet permissionsTrack citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInWeChat To the Editor: In his Viewpoint article, “Human Experimentation: No accurate, quantitative data?” Dr. Loring Rowell (2) provides ample examples of quantitative methods that have added immeasurably to our understanding of physiology through human research. At the same time, however, Dr. Rowell alludes to a point that transcends the argument of the relative accuracy and preciseness of animal vs. human research, the fact that one complements the other. “Understanding of human physiology indeed rests in part on what we have learned from other species…” Likewise, what we learn from human physiology extends our understanding of observations made in other species. The relationship between these two areas of research is analogous to that between clinical and basic science. Neither is any more valid nor important than the other. The new knowledge provided by basic research fosters ideas for unique treatments and therapies in patient care, which in turn encourages further studies by basic scientists. In other words, science goes from bench to bedside and then back to the bench again. Our attempt to understand nature is an iterative process with constant refinement and shaping of that which we know in an effort to learn that which is unknown. It is a process whereby important contributions are made through animal and human research, as well as through even more highly controlled studies involving cell culture and biochemistry. Whether one is more accurate and quantitative than another (1) is moot compared with the transcendent point that each contributes importantly to our overall understanding of physiology.REFERENCES1 Hainsworth R, Drinkhill MJ. Counterpoint: Active venoconstriction is not important in maintaining or raising end-diastolic volume and stroke volume during exercise and orthostasis. J Appl Physiol 101: 1264–1265, 2006.Link | ISI | Google Scholar2 Rowell LB. Human experimentation: No accurate, quantitative data? J Appl Physiol. In press.Google ScholarAUTHOR NOTESAddress for reprint requests and other correspondence: G. A. Ordway, Dept. of Physiology, Univ. of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd., Dallas, TX 75235 (e-mail: [email protected]) Download PDF Previous Back to Top Next FiguresReferencesRelatedInformation More from this issue > Volume 102Issue 3March 2007Pages 1290-1290 Copyright & PermissionsCopyright © 2007 the American Physiological Societyhttps://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.01399.2006PubMed17341739History Published online 1 March 2007 Published in print 1 March 2007 Metrics