How much more can animal models like mice reveal in brain science research for mental health solutions? This is not a question about possibilities in experimental science, but about the gridlock in psychiatry for decades.
How do you use what has already been established from animal models in neuroscience research to answer unknown questions of mental disorders? What new things can be observed about how the brain of animal models works that can be useful, directly to solving gambling or sports betting addiction, or drug addiction, depression, schizophrenia, and so forth?
Say a new molecule is isolated, OK, so what next? Target the molecule with a medication, then the medication has side-effects, like everything else already. Even if this appears simplistic to say, it should already be obvious that molecules in the brain never work in isolation.
Are new animal models necessary?
They may be correlated with some functions, but if inhibited or induced, the side-effects can be quite rough. Is there any theory in neuroscience for the existence of side-effects of psychiatric medications? If a theory were to be developed, would new animal models be necessary, or can postulations be made from the existing body of work in brain science research?
There could be concerns that neurogenetics is a reason to continue animal models, but what is the gene for a subject in school, or the gene for a house, or the gene for a footwear? Genes are often expressed in neurons during functions, but genes are not the configurations for which functions for relationships with the world are built, conceptually.
Simply, during brain activities, blood and oxygen are busy, glia are busy, neurons are busy, genes are busy, and so forth. But what does it mean that an individual is disconnected from reality? If there are problems with any of these busy elements, there could be problems with usual functioning, but what is the construct of what functions are?
So, the brain knows a car, a house, a book, a smell, the temperature, a sound, a taste, and so forth. These things were not physically put in the brain to be known. In what form do they exist in the brain, for the exactness of what they are in the external world?
This means that there are configurations or assemblies, or formations for memory. Like there is a structure to specify a memory from another, and so forth. What are the components of the brain that bear these configurations? Why do they have the capability to do so? How do they rely on other elements in the brain, but are able to be at the forefront of functions?
Memory is not engrams. Never have and never will. Distributed representation is not how human memory works. Neurons are not the basis for human memory. The reason for memory is not prediction. The brain does not make predictions. Neurons are cells. How would a neuron encode or represent a chair? Or how would clusters of neurons do so, as physical as they are? Then for emotions, feelings, and several internal functions?
If neurons are representing functions, why won’t neurons deliver them? Why would signals be able to deliver what neurons represent? Why would neurons communicate pain to humans? What is the survival value of that communication for neurons?
Electrical and chemical signals can be postulated to be configurators of functions. It is because they are the basis that they can transport functions. Also, they are flexible enough to configure and transport functions. Neurons are the route they use, but signals are the vehicles, conceptually.
There is no need for any new animal models to postulate this. It is possible to use the interactions and attributes of signals in clusters of neurons to explain mental disorders as well as side-effects, advancing psychiatry.
The future for answers in neuroscience research is theoretical, making animal models unnecessary at least in the near term. What observations have been explained from data, and what new observations can mature theories explain, if there are new animal models in experiments?
Human-focused approaches
There is a new [July 15, 2025] report in The Transmitter, NIH proposal sows concerns over future of animal research, unnecessary costs, stating that, “The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced last week that its future funding opportunities would no longer include research that exclusively uses animal models, confusing members of the neuroscience community.”
“In a press release published 10 July [2025], NIH clarified that all funding opportunities related to animal model systems “must now also support human-focused approaches such as clinical trials, real-world data, or new approach methods (NAMs).” More recently, NIH has been pushing NAMs (which have also been called novel alternative methods, non-animal methods, or new alternative methods) to complement animal research, and many neuroscientists welcome the use of models that reduce animal testing.”
This article was written for WHN by David Stephen, who currently does research in conceptual brain science with a focus on the electrical and chemical configurators for how they mechanize the human mind with implications for mental health, disorders, neurotechnology, consciousness, learning, artificial intelligence, and nurture. He was a visiting scholar in medical entomology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, IL. He did computer vision research at Rovira i Virgili University, Tarragona.
As with anything you read on the internet, this article should not be construed as medical advice; please talk to your doctor or primary care provider before changing your wellness routine. WHN does not agree or disagree with any of the materials posted. This article is not intended to provide a medical diagnosis, recommendation, treatment, or endorsement.
Opinion Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy of WHN/A4M. Any content provided by guest authors is of their own opinion and is not intended to malign any religion, ethnic group, club, organization, company, individual, or anyone or anything else. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.
