Why NeuroPhile?
Over the past few decades, non-human animal models have highlighted numerous pharmacological targets across various therapeutic fields. Unfortunately, their use in human clinical settings has not yielded the expected results: across all therapeutic areas, nine out of ten candidate drugs fail during clinical trials and market authorization, with an even higher failure rate for drugs targeting the nervous system.
These disappointing results can be explained by at least two factors: either the clinical trials failed to detect the effects of these new drugs, or the animal models failed to accurately assess the clinical efficacy of the treatments. In the latter case, animal models may only partially or incorrectly model the pathology, indicating a need to refine the animal models themselves, the associated experimental protocols, and the concepts used to interpret the results. This work focuses on the second aspect.
Specifically, our aim is to propose conceptual tools for the scientific community to evaluate and analyze these models and the knowledge they generate, with the hope of contributing to their improvement.
​
To achieve this goal, we take an approach at the intersection of neuroscience and philosophy.
Key issues
Bringing disciplines and researchers into dialogue
Understanding the emotions
Development of tools for researchers and doctors
The primary goal of this project is to create spaces for dialogue between scientists, doctors, and philosophers through the organization of seminars, the writing of articles, etc.
This dialogue between researchers is also a dialogue between theories: this project combines neuroscientific knowledge, theories of emotions in philosophy, and psychiatric theories, with the aim of better understanding emotions.
In experimental neuroscience , the question of animal models arises: the application of the results to humans remains complex. Developing tools allowing researchers to assess the relevance of an animal model is one of our objectives .