I bet mice worked just fine as test subjects until Global Warming screwed everything up.

>For decades, mice have been the species of choice in the study of human diseases. But now, researchers report evidence that the mouse model has been totally misleading for at least three major killers — sepsis, burns and trauma. As a result, years and billions of dollars have been wasted following false leads, they say.
>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/testing-of-some-deadly-diseases-on-mice-mislead-report-says.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
>
>Off topic, buried on page 2 is this nugget :
>The study’s investigators tried for more than a year to publish their paper, which showed that there was no relationship between the genetic responses of mice and those of humans. They submitted it to the publications Science and Nature, hoping to reach a wide audience. It was rejected from both.
>
>Science and Nature said it was their policy not to comment on the fate of a rejected paper, or whether it had even been submitted to them. But, Ginger Pinholster of Science said, the journal accepts only about 7 percent of the nearly 13,000 papers submitted each year, so it is not uncommon for a paper to make the rounds.
>
>Still, Dr. Davis said, reviewers did not point out scientific errors. Instead, he said, “the most common response was, ‘It has to be wrong. I don’t know why it is wrong, but it has to be wrong.’ ”
>
>Curious, 2 of the major scientific publications peer-review process' rejected this groundbreaking study because it didn't fit their narrative. Where have I heard something like that before? Something involving heated consensus... ;)
>
>Of course, this study falls right in line with my 3 favorites:
>http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118972683557627104.html
>http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn7915
>http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5986/1627.summary