The problem is that the researcher is set up as a terrible straw man, and that in turn makes Adam look a bit like an asshole here, even before getting to animal testing: To start off, she claims that “you can’t [prove things wrong in] science!” … excuse me?! Science is all about [hypotheses] being proved wrong. That’s quite literally its definition.

On we go: “Everyone knows testing on rodents is practically the same as doing actual human trials”. Actually, no competent researcher thinks that. I’ll grant that it’s a fairly common misconception in the media, and one that’s definitely worth addressing.

But it’s disingenuous and counter-productive to do this by creating other misconceptions — namely about what science is (see above), and that scientists are somehow oblivious to the (very obvious!) deficiencies of animal testing. That doesn’t mean that mouse model research is useless — far from it (unfortunately). It’s a crucial first step in a lot of biological and medical research.

To be sure, Dr Raza — as an expert — makes excellent points! But so does the FDA when it mandates animal trials before human trials: Adam points to an example where a drug went to human trials and almost killed the patients even though it was safe in mice. OK. Now imagine how often that would happen if we didn’t have preliminary mouse studies.

That said, all (!) animal research scientists I know support stronger regulations on mouse research. And, although I can’t speak for the US, the regulations are already a lot stricter in the UK and Germany than claimed in Adam’s video.

> the actors behind the cartoon are reading a script written by someone...

So.. it really doesn't matter who teaches and who listens, because ultimately they're both actors reading from a script. How does that play in favor of your argument?

Not to mention the woman he's explaining to is a scientist researcher, and at the end of the video, they have Dr. Azra Raza as a guest (who is also a woman) to further solidify the arguments.

If you think you're defending anything by calling it "mansplaining" and complaining that women aren't treated fairly, you're wrong and you're not helping anyone.

the cartoon depicts an incompetent woman scientist being talked-down to by an arrogant dick! It has the form:

woman: "<erroneously> science says X"

man : "<correcting her> actually the truth is Y"

The jerk also talks-down to us the audience. It's terrible science-education and it's not "humor"

Would it be any better if the genders of the actors were reversed?

"mansplain" is a gender-biased criticism of behavior. It implies that the gender of the participants is the problem, rather than the attitudes or behavior.

But apparently the mice in the study react to the gender, so maybe it's germane...

everyone know's it's men who do it so don't pretend it's a reversible situation

Sorry, I mistook you for someone attempting to add value to the conversation.