Wrong! Those are exactly the questions that are asked.
The tests use a group of control subjects vs test subjects which is standard throughout science. This means it takes out a factor such as what environment the animal is stored in by simply storing them all in the same type of environment. This is done every time a study is run to remove minor variations.
Science is all about controlling the variables, it is actually what scientists spend most of their time thinking about.
What really went wrong in this case is when they got to the point of testing humans they stopped doing "science" and started doing "business".
If they hadn't sweeped the bad data under the rug they could have published a lovely paper about how the standard tests for depression in animal models failed (in reboxetine's case, one goat a herd does not make, the tests could just be bad for reboxetine for some reason).
The tests use a group of control subjects vs test subjects which is standard throughout science. This means it takes out a factor such as what environment the animal is stored in by simply storing them all in the same type of environment. This is done every time a study is run to remove minor variations.
Science is all about controlling the variables, it is actually what scientists spend most of their time thinking about.
What really went wrong in this case is when they got to the point of testing humans they stopped doing "science" and started doing "business".
If they hadn't sweeped the bad data under the rug they could have published a lovely paper about how the standard tests for depression in animal models failed (in reboxetine's case, one goat a herd does not make, the tests could just be bad for reboxetine for some reason).