title: Logical fallacies in animal model research.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Animal models of human behavioural deficits involve conducting experiments on animals with the hope of gaining new knowledge that can be applied to humans. This paper aims to address risks, biases, and fallacies associated with drawing conclusions when conducting experiments on animals, with focus on animal models of mental illness.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Researchers using animal models are susceptible to a fallacy known as false analogy, where inferences based on assumptions of similarities between animals and humans can potentially lead to an incorrect conclusion. There is also a risk of false positive results when evaluating the validity of a putative animal model, particularly if the experiment is not conducted double-blind. It is further argued that animal model experiments are reconstructions of human experiments, and not replications per se, because the animals cannot follow instructions. This leads to an experimental setup that is altered to accommodate the animals, and typically involves a smaller sample size than a human experiment. Researchers on animal models of human behaviour should increase focus on mechanistic validity in order to ensure that the underlying causal mechanisms driving the behaviour are the same, as relying on face validity makes the model susceptible to logical fallacies and a higher risk of Type 1 errors. We discuss measures to reduce bias and risk of making logical fallacies in animal research, and provide a guideline that researchers can follow to increase the rigour of their experiments.
authors.affiliation: Department of Behavioral Sciences, Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Sciences, St. Olavs Plass, P.O. Box 4, 0130, Oslo, Norway. espen.sjoberg@hioa.no.
authors.forename: Espen A
authors.initials: EA
authors.lastname: Sjoberg
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards; D004195:Disease Models, Animal; D006801:Humans; D008128:Logic; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000378:metabolism / Q000523:psychology*
keywords: Animal models; Argument from analogy; Confirmation bias; Double-down effect; Type 1 error; Validity