Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak 185
archatheist writes "Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany have engineered a mouse whose FOXP2 gene has been swapped out for a different (human) version. This is interesting because the gene is implicated in human language, and this has changed how mice squeak. 'In a region of the brain called the basal ganglia, known in people to be involved in language, the humanized mice grew nerve cells that had a more complex structure. Baby mice utter ultrasonic whistles when removed from their mothers. The humanized baby mice, when isolated, made whistles that had a slightly lower pitch, among other differences, Dr. Enard says. Dr. Enard argues that putting significant human genes into mice is the only feasible way of exploring the essential differences between people and chimps, our closest living relatives.' The academic paper was published in Cell."
this can only end.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:this can only end.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is just the beginning. They started off with a cut down version of the gene (due to patent restrictions on the method used in working with the full gene) that only allows the mice to squeek in the lower tone, do the high pitch whistle, and make one other noise, such as checking its email. The three squeek limit will be a limitation until the Mice Generation 7, when they'll be able to have as many squeeks as they like, but the amount of memory they can use will be limited. This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"This is of course until the EU gets their hands into them, and they will be born without an ability to browse.'
I think this would have been more accurate: And they no longer have a browser-pellet forcefed to them, but are made concious that they are free to browse as they like.
Bert
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a stupid argument because the average user needs a web browser to download another web browser, they don't have the disc lying around. (Can you even get a disc for Firefox?) They could technically do it via FTP, if they had any idea how, but they don't.
Taking the browser away from the user only hurts the user. IE's market share is plummeting anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
... uh, the argument was that MS should not force OEMs to include IE and only IE.
No, they got in trouble for forcing OEMs to include IE and only IE, the proposed penalty which Microsoft has so far managed to weasel out of was to remove the browser from the OS entirely.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Quit letting your opinion be swayed by your bitterness over the fact that a browser from a company you don't like is widely used. If you really have trouble using a non-IE browser, that reflects only on your own abilities.
This polemic is not about the user. The trouble is not in using another browser, the trouble is writing websites for IE. It is a frustrating fucking nightmare. It is such a mess that anybody who has written a website in the last 5 or 6 years can not believe that people would choose IE of their own free will. Of course, the mess is transparent to the user who will blame the website if it does not look right in IE.
Now, I know that the IE situation has gotten b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You really should not be attaching events that way. This is bad for a number of reasons, the biggest of which is that you only get one event per element. Personally, I really like the observe method from prototype.js, but with what you are talking about MooTools might be better.
It is
Re:this can only end.. (Score:5, Funny)
This is slashdot. Everything's related to Microsoft-bashing.
one of the major problems of Microsoft (Score:5, Funny)
But guess what?! DRIVER INCOMPATIBILITIES! It must have been a memory leak or something, because when I turned the thing on "low" and aimed it at Alabama (that'll teach you to deny my MBA application!), rather than disintegrating the state, it covered it in peanut butter.
And not nice smooth peanut butter, either. Some extreme chunky variety that really didn't harm Alabama at all.
So fuck you, Microsoft, and your shitty drivers.
Re:this can only end.. (Score:5, Funny)
Unrelated?! There's bits about TWO front page slashdot stories in there, as opposed to the other posts which relate just to the ONE? That makes my post *doubly* related.
I'm sure that's how it works. Isn't it? :-p
Re:this can only end.. (Score:4, Interesting)
And the mice will suddenly start to develop extreme communication skills and figure out how to upset the results of the scientists.
This is an interesting part of science, even if it's not always morally "right". The outcome should be that we will learn more about ourselves and to design better drugs to treat illnesses.
But the more worrying kind of action here is that it also invites to tampering with genes that can make humans meek and controllable. A new level of slavery can be developed. Just imagine a totalitarian state with zombie slaves to do all the dirt work. If the Nazis had had this technology they would have used it! And super-humans that can exceed all current Olympic records.
Let's just say that we live in interesting times!
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, that won't happen. They will escape their human creators along with the rats next door and migrate out to country, steal resources
Re:this can only end.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What? No they wouldn't. Why go to all the trouble of genetically engineering a subhuman slave race when you've already got millions of untermenschen all over the place that you need to find a use for? The whole point of the Third Reich was to get rid of the inferior breeds, not to create more!
Mengele would probably have played with this technology, but as a matter of policy the Nazis were fixated on genetic purity. Cross-species gene tampering of this kind would probably have disgusted them.
Re:this can only end.. (Score:5, Funny)
"How better to disguise their real natures, and how better to guide your thinking. Suddenly running down a maze the wrong way, eating the wrong bit of cheese, unexpectedly dropping dead of myxomatosis, - if it's finely calculated the cumulative effect is enormous."
Re: (Score:2)
[snip]Nazis[snip]
Godwin's law!
Re:this can only end.. (Score:5, Funny)
Is that such a bad thing?
One Celine Dion was enough, thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Massive reverse engineering job (Score:5, Insightful)
Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millenniums.
Re:Massive reverse engineering job (Score:4, Interesting)
Sounds like a job for... better tools. :)
Well Said (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
You only have the tip of the iceberg, here. The truth of our current landscape in research is that all animal models are grossly inadequate for a complete understanding of human physiology.
Well, if all they ever do is swap some genes, growing new animals with the swapped genes and look for phenotypical (i.e., physiological/behavioural) changes in them, then it doesn't look to me like they're trying to *understand* very much at all. It's more like a systematic but dumb search for correlations. Kind of how physicists worked before Galileo and Newton.
Re:Massive reverse engineering job (Score:5, Informative)
Today's biology is finite component analysis done at a massive scale.. Figuring out how a machine as big as a person works is going to take millennium
Maybe not, high-throughput molecular biology is getting better all the time.
-With the genome sequenced we have a rough idea of how many genes there are and can find homologies between genes, so you can begin clustering genes by presumed function.
-With mutagenesis screens, you can sometimes identify most of the genes involved in a given process.
-High-throughput protein interaction studies can identify complexes, grouping proteins into functional groups.
-There's an attempt to make a knockout mouse [wikipedia.org] for every gene in their genome.
None of those will give you the full story for any one gene, nor will any give you good stories for most of the genes by themselves. But used together, we can have a rough idea of what genes do what, and can take a closer look at what we need to. This gene, FOXP2 for example, was not chosen at random.
And that's just with technology I've heard of that exists now. I don't know much about genomics, and we certainly are going to continue to invent ways to get research done faster. I think the human genome project came in under budget and ahead of schedule largely due to technology that was advanced as the project was underway. It's too early to make such long forecasts.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoever it's being done by, it seems to be working. Encouragement? Grants, jobs, articles... We don't tell innovators to go to hell. What did you have in mind? I do think we could reward our scientists more, like maybe a tenth of how we reward actors/actresses, models, and sports stars. I mean, I guess that's a little self-serving as I'm a scientist rather than an actor, model, or sports star. We could always do better with that, and research could always go faster, but the research is coming along.
And their mother says... (Score:2)
Life imitates art? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps, but The Secret of MPIEA just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
This is just our plan for the continuation of at least some of our genes when we render the planet incapable of sustaining human life. We'll also engineer the mice for CO2 resistance, and they can live on the cockroaches that will be the only other thing around.
Re: (Score:2)
>>This is how The Secret of Nimh began, isn't it?
I don't recall the mice whistling to each other in ultrasonic morse code, but then again, it's been a while.
Where is the line? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm assuming most people here won't have a problem with this research. But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps? Do we have any moral obligations not to cross this line? I am in awe and at the same time terrified about the future.
This article raises some of these questions. It's quite interesting that it was written in 2004. It even mentions the FOXP2 gene.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34941.html [reason.com]
Re: (Score:2)
"What about injecting human brain cells into mice?"
No that would just be silly. Firstly, keeping brain cells alive long enough to put them into a mouse is gonna be difficult, secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse, and thirdly, even if you got the cells into the mouse they wouldn't do anything because they wouldn't be connecting into the mouse's neural network. The genetic approach is probably gonna remain much more effective.
Re:Where is the line? (Score:4, Informative)
The linked article seems to disagree with you:
Stanford University's Irving Weissman has injected human neural stem cells from aborted fetuses into the brains of fetal mice, where they have integrated and grown into human neurons and glia that intermingle with mouse brain cells, making up about 1 percent of the tissue in their brains.
Re: (Score:2)
Great, next you're gonna tell 'im that actually MIT have created monsters to go under the bed. Sheesh!
Re:Where is the line? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the link:
> However, there is no evidence the chimeric mice began to contemplate the meaning of life. We need to give such chimeric mice no more or less moral consideration than we already give laboratory mice.
Really? How do they know that - they don't speak mice.
And what about the humans who don't contemplate the meaning of life? Most of us don't contemplate the meaning of life every minute of our lives.
OK say 1% human is still not human enough. At what percentage does a subject become too human to experiment on?
Yes, look at it that way.
And they'd probably do things the other way round too - start adding nonhuman (not necessarily animal) parts to humans.
So maybe you might decide to reject an "upgrade" because you would be no longer be classed as human and thus be no longer eligible for human-only medical insurance or "NHS".
Just because the tech is ready, doesn't mean the laws, systems and societies are ready.
Re:Where is the line? (Score:5, Funny)
And what about the humans who don't contemplate the meaning of life? Most of us don't contemplate the meaning of life every minute of our lives.
We do actually. Look, there's no easy way to tell you this but it's time you knew; you're one of the mice.
I'm a mouse? (Score:2)
Oh well, on the bright side that means there's lots of medication and tech out there that is proven to work for me.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
secondly, the mouse's immune system's gonna just reject and kill the cells as soon as they are put into the mouse,
They'd be using SCID [wikipedia.org] mice. These mice are often used for xenografts, sometimes with human tissue. For example, here's an abstract [nih.gov] describing a study in which researchers implanted human ovarian tissue into SCID mice, and the tissue actually developed into something resembling a functional human ovary. I think I saw the lead researcher give a talk, she thought these tissues would be functional with hormone stimulation.
Re:Where is the line? (Score:5, Insightful)
in a nut shell, i'd support any form of genetic experiementation that does cause undue distress or suffering on an animal. call me a soft lefty, but i just can't stomach unwarranted suffering of animals. i feel worse for them than i do for most humans, because they don't understand what's happening and certainly don't bring it on themselfs.
once i was asked if i supported harvesting organs from animals to save people - I do, but only if it's done in a humane manner and the animals don't suffer. after all if we can't protect animals from cruelty what chance is there we will do the same for our fellow man?
Re: (Score:2)
> "would you eat pork with human genes in it"
But I draw the line at mice.
Not everyone does. http://www.fugly.com/videos/6644/guy_eats_live_mouse.html [fugly.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Brilliant. So if the experiment isn't intrinsically painful you can just hit them with a big stick.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, while I'm surprised nobody else has done it yet, I can't pass it up...
"Soylent Pork, it's what's for dinner"...
And yes, I do believe I would...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A lot of scientists (and other people) seem to think just because it can be done, it should be done (and if they don't someone else will do it anyway).
Will human society be willing to give such transgenic mice, chimps and pigs the full rights as other humans? If we aren't, we shouldn't be doing stuff like this.
Even if such research can benefit humans in one way, it will cause big problems.
People may ask: nut who then
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
This is going to sound intentionally inflammatory - that's because it is. I'm tired of hearing the same tired complaints without any sort of logical foundation or any real argument presented at all. My intention is not to offend you and walk off with a smirk, but to offend you and have you walk off with doubts.
Why should we give equal rights to an animal just because it has a few human genes in it?
That's like giving a used condom the right to vote. The presence of human genetic material does not imbue some
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Would it be wrong for me to euthanize or enslave all you stupid unthinking animals?
Anyway I figure some smart sociopathic world leaders already have answered that question with "don't care" or "no as long as it benefits me".
So it's not really going to matter that much anyway
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ain't the truth a pain? Sorry. Many people before you have proposed banning certain avenues of research, and science always wins.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Unfortunately I believe people will cross many such lines way before human society is ready.
So what? Human societies (of which there are many) still on occasional can't come to grips with basic human behavior which has been around for longer than humanity has.
It seems to me that society has some obligation to keep up to speed on what's going on in technology, science, and the forefront of human advancement. What good are uninformed regulations? My view is that there's some flawed game theory here. That is, proponents of "banning" certain technological advancements think it's merely a choice bet
Re: (Score:2)
So if we start making pigs yet more intelligent it makes us even more of monsters if we do "destructive R&D" on them.
As for the animal-human "flip". It's a legal issue not a tech issue. The laws and courts will decide.
When does a mixture of flour, eggs, sugar, water, etc legally become cake? Someone draws that line. Yes the line will be arbitrary and stupid. But there'll be more problems if you refuse to draw the line
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that ALL animals (and plants, etc.) are transgenic. There's nothing new or special about it. Various virus have been transporting genes cross-species for as long as we can tell (and there's no reason to think they started then).
What's new is doing it on purpose. (And we don't always use virus. Sometimes we use a golden shotgun...highly miniaturized, of course.)
Re: (Score:2)
So people won't need to deal with it just _yet_.
Re: (Score:2)
But truly, where is the line? What about injecting human brain cells into mice? How about into chimps?
The differences between mouse, chimp, and human neurons are less significant than the higher organization of neurons. I couldn't find figures for numbers of neurons in chimps or mice, but this website [washington.edu] indicates that humans have around a hundred billion neurons in the brain, the human brain weighing 1.3-1.4kg. The chimp brain weighs 420 grams. We have more cells in our brains than mice do in their entire body.
Injecting human neurons into a mouse? Wouldn't do anything like make the mouse self aware. It w
Just don't go injecting brain cells into Britney (Score:2)
Interesting, yet I don't want the results... (Score:3, Insightful)
The Ethics of Sentient Life (Score:3, Interesting)
Suppose that this mouse is actually now sentient. Do we commit a crime when we imprison it in a laboratory or mangle its body (for the sake of some test)?
When we create chimera, we are playing god.
Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life (Score:4, Insightful)
I hate to break it to you but all mammals are already sentient. Every step on an animals tail? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.
Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life (Score:4, Informative)
Sentient is a loaded word, it doesn't really mean what most people associate to it. By definition any thing that reacts to a given stimulus could be argued to be sentient given that experiencing a "sensation" must happen to cause the reaction. Most people believe sentient includes the concept of self awareness, it doesn't and this is a fine distinction to remember.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Every step on an animals tail? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.
Actually, that's proof of its responsiveness. Sentience is a subset of responsiveness, but they're not the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know what sentience means? It's obvious from the definition.
sentience:
1. Having sense perception; conscious
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
Re: (Score:2)
I could propose that you are also merely reactive, but based on my own experience as a sentient being I don't find that argument particularly strong.
If I am aware of perceptions than it is doubtless that you are too. And if both of us are aware than other mammalian brains that have much in common with our own brains are also very likely to have some level of awareness of their perceptions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When we create chimera, we are playing god.
I'm sick and tired of people saying that, especially the people who say that like it's an inherently bad thing. I seriously don't get what's wrong with it. If "playing god" can improve the quality of human life, I'd say it's immoral not to.
Re: (Score:2)
Any advance on knowledge breaks the above. We need myth to keep us going while we fill in the blanks with knowledge.
You want to keep myth ? Good for you, we need people like you to keep feeding scientists wile scientists work away
doing non food producing research. You are not a total loss
Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone who has spent any time at all around farm animals, will tell you that they ain't got nothin' to say that's worth listening to. Which is actually much like most of the people in the world.
Re: (Score:2)
What possible reason would you have for wanting to avoid knowing this?
Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... (Score:5, Funny)
The feeling of betrayal releases hormones into the blood that makes a steak taste just great
Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... (Score:5, Funny)
Emotions or not, I'm still eating cows.
A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table,
... er ... I
a large fat meaty quadruped of the bovine type with
large watery eyes, small horns and what might almost have been an ingratiating smile on its lips.
'Good evening', it lowed and sat back heavily on its haunches, 'I am the main Dish of the Day. May I interest you in the parts of my body?'
It harrumphed and gurgled a bit, wriggled its hind quarters in to a more comfortable position and gazed peacefully at them.
Its gaze was met by looks of startled bewilderment from Arthur and Trillian, a resigned shrug from Ford Prefect and naked hunger from Zaphod Beeblebrox.
'Something off the shoulder perhaps?' suggested the animal, 'Braised in a white wine sauce?'
'Er, your shoulder?' said Arthur in a horrified whisper.
'But naturally my shoulder, sir,' mooed the animal contentedly, 'nobody else's is mine to offer.'
Zaphod leapt to his feet and started prodding and feeling the animal's shoulder appreciatively.
'Or the rump is very good,' murmured the animal. 'I've been exercising it and eating plenty of grain, so there's a lot of good meat there.'
It gave a mellow grunt, gurgled again and started to chew the cud. It swallowed the cud again.
'Or a casselore of me perhaps?' it added.
'You mean this animal actually wants us to eat it?' whispered Trillian to Ford.
'Me?' said Ford, with a glazed look in his eyes, 'I don't mean anything.'
'That's absolutely horrible,' exclaimed Arthur, 'the most revolting thing I've ever heard.'
'What's the problem Earthman?' said Zaphod, now transfering his attention to the animal's enormous rump.
'I just don't want to eat an animal that's standing there inviting me to,' said Arthur, 'It's heartless.'
'Better than eating an animal that doesn't want to be eaten,' said Zaphod.
'That's not the point,' Arthur protested. Then he thought about it
for a moment. 'Alright,' he said, 'maybe it is the point. I don't
care, I'm not going to think about it now. I'll just
think I'll just have a green salad,' he muttered.
'May I urge you to consider my liver?' asked the animal, 'it must be very rich and tender by now, I've been force-feeding myself for months.'
'A green salad,' said Arthur emphatically.
'A green salad?' said the animal, rolling his eyes disapprovingly at Arthur.
'Are you going to tell me,' said Arthur, 'that I shouldn't have green salad?'
'Well,' said the animal, 'I know many vegetables that are
very clear on that point. Which is why it was eventually
decided to cut through the whoile tangled problem and breed
an animal that actually wanted to be eaten and was capable of
saying so clearly and distinctly. And here I am.'
It managed a very slight bow.
'Glass of water please,' said Arthur.
'Look,' said Zaphod, 'we want to eat, we don't want to make a meal of the issues. Four rare stakes please, and hurry. We haven't eaten in five hundred and sevebty-six thousand million years.'
The animal staggered to its feet. It gave a mellow gurgle. 'A very wise coice, sir, if I may say so. Very good,' it said, 'I'll just nip off and shoot myself.'
He turned and gave a friendly wink to Arthur. 'Don't worry, sir,' he said, 'I'll be very humane.'
It waddled unhurriedly off to the kitchen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I reckon MichaelSmith is referring to a movie that is almost - but not quite - completely unlike this book.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
...Mainly, that is if animals were allowed to converse in a common language with humans, it would show us if they possess a consciousness, can reason, and what emotions that they can feel...
Cognitive linguistics suggests that consciousness is inextricably linked to language
A further study of slashdot posts suggests consciousness is linked to typing. You know we once had equally dogy and self serving reasons to believe that Africans weren't intelligent.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
cognitive linguistics suggests that, but cognitive linguists can also assume that consciousness is an artifact of the networks languages organize our minds into. Speech is like a projection of the maps our minds use to organize stimuli, typing is linked to how we consciously view consciousness and then try to reorganize it into communication. It is not dodgy or self-serving, those old "reasons" were ad hoc methods to justify a conclusion, from a different hegemonic mindset. The dodgy part is that an inabili
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think there is a flaw in your reasoning that sanctity of life should be determined by ability of expression. Or do you think that toddlers and the mentally handicap are not worth anything?
First spoken humain words... (Score:5, Funny)
Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering ?
Re:First spoken humain words... (Score:5, Funny)
I think so Brain - but how are we going to get Natalie Portman and Jenna Haze into a room together with a bucket of grits?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's quite simple Pinky, I'm going to Take Over The World
First words (Score:2)
Basal Ganglia - SHIT! (Score:5, Funny)
While researching speech in relation to the brain, it was discovered that while regular, everyday speech originated from the pars opercularis and pars triangularis of the inferior frontal gyrus, cursing originated from the basal ganglia.
We know intuitively that cursing 'feels' different than regular speech when you do it, at an emotional level. They have proven that it actually is different, at the biological level.
What's supercool about this experiment, is they increased the mouse's capacity to curse .
What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hah! And here I am again with no mod points.
Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! (Score:5, Interesting)
What I wouldn't pay for a mouse that could curse. Or good god a monkey. Give me a cursing monkey and I'll tithe you every paycheck 'til I die.
A marker of language as opposed to verbal signaling is that speech is 'productive'. That is, it evolves. This can be done by compounding -- simplifying multiple elements into a single one. An example of Koko the gorilla doing comes from Penny Patterson's dissertation. Koko took the signs for 'apple' and 'drink' and formed a single compound sign for 'apple juice'. This example has been passed around for years as good evidence Koko was actually using language.
Another example from the same source but not made as public was Koko's compounding 'dirty', 'toilet' and 'stink' into a sign referring to feces. Not terribly surprising in normal use. But she used it in another context. When her intended mate Mike was introduced, Koko didn't care for him at all. One time when Penny was trying to cajole Koko into accepting Mike, she said "Mike is a smart gorilla. I like Mike." Unimpressed, Koko replied "Mike dirty-toilet-stink", ie. 'Mike is shit'.
There's your cursing monkey (actually, ape). You can find it in her dissertation, "Linguistic Capabilities of a Lowland Gorilla", Stanford, 1979. Or you can call Koko's humans at 1-800-ME-GO-APE (634-6273), I dirty-toilet-stink you not. If you're serious about your paycheck to even the slightest degree, feel free to visit koko.org and donate to her Conservation Education Project: Koko is teaching sign language in Cameroon, to deaf children as well as to hearing children interested in becoming sign language interpreters. If anyone still doubts Koko's linguistic abilities in light of this fact, I would doubt their linguistic comprehension more than I would Koko's.
Re: (Score:2)
However, I was aware of Koko, though it has been years since I've read anything about her. I'll read up on what they are doing with her, and if the project seems worthy, I'll donate
Re: (Score:2)
Quit your mad-scientist daydreaming and just get a frickin' parrot already. You can teach them to curse in about 10 minutes.
Be sure to avoid the Norwegian Blue variety though -- they are slow learners.
Re: (Score:2)
The plural of anecdote is not data. The 'research' done on Koko was nothing but grant-draining. Anyone can teach an ape to copy - we even have a specific word in our language to describe this.
Re: (Score:2)
The plural of anecdote is not data. The 'research' done on Koko was nothing but grant-draining. Anyone can teach an ape to copy - we even have a specific word in our language to describe this.
A single word? Perhaps. I can think of a few phrases that would cover it. How very clever of you to craft your assertion in the form of an example. Or should that be how clever of who ever it was who taught you. You/they did very well, except for choosing to copy the same unsupported assertions as the other copying apes. That's always a major tip off.
Another is making statements that indicate no grasp of the concepts you're slinging, like 'teach an ape to copy'. Nobody has to teach an ape, or any other spec
Re: (Score:2)
:/
Cite?
Re: (Score:2)
So THAT's what really happened to Timmy Two-Teeth [wikia.com]!
Those bastards!
np: Barbara Morgenstern - Nichts Muss (Nichts Muss)
FOXP2 saga (Score:3, Insightful)
We should beware of popular reports of scientific discoveries: almost all the popular reports of FOXP2 claimed that it was the gene for language or even more ludicrously the gene for grammar - the truth is more complicated and far more interesting than that.
No-one should imagine that the development of language relied exclusively on a single mutation in FOXP2. They are many other changes that enable speech. Not least of these are profound anatomical changes that make the human supralarygeal pathway entirely different from any other mammal. The larynx has descended so that it provides a resonant column for speech (but, as an unfortunate side-effect, predisposes humans to choking on food). Also, the nasal cavity can be closed thus preventing vowels from being nasalised and thus increasing their comprehensibility. These changes cannot have happened over such a short period as 100,000 years. Furthermore the genetic basis for language will be found to involve many more genes that influence both cognitive and motor skills
Human mind needs human cognition and human cognition relies on human speech. Ultimately, we will find great insight from further unravelling the evolutionary roots of human speech.
awesome idea (Score:2)
Heard: (Score:4, Funny)
"Okay, who moved my fuckin' cheese! Hey Mr. Labcoat, why don't YOU run this goddam maze; you look like you could lose some weight."
Good Data Points, Not So Good Connections (Score:5, Informative)
TF(academic)A is a very well done piece of work. I'm glad to see this, as opposed to the junior high school comprehension level press releases usually presented as science. As such, my criticisms are offered respectfully.
The FOXP2 gene cannot be said to be directly involved in language. The referenced works state that altering it disrupts some aspects of language production. There are many more ways that disruptions can occur through third variables or more general systems. In this case, altering the gene causes alteration in the dopamine system, which feeds the spiny neurons. Dopaminergic activity on spiny neurons causes inhibitory signals in the gamma range (~40 HZ) to be sent to the neurons in Hebbian cellular assemblies (a primary processing unit), synchronizing them and causing them to perform their function. This may well happen in the basal ganglia, but also happens over much of the cortex. This is a general system, responsible for a great deal of brain function. To claim it is part of language is not wrong, but is improper in that it is inaccurate due to over-specificity. As evidence, the well studied dopaminergic disorder Parkinson's does cause language disruption as noted in TFA, but clearly does so only as a specific example of a global phenomenon.
Similarly, specific changes due to specific allele substitutions can only be said to be true if and only if substituting other alleles into the same locations do not cause similar changes. There is no evidence that the example referenced is as specific as is implied by the statement as presented.
The statement that studying mice as 'the only feasible way' to study the relationship between humans and chimps appears so skewed that I wonder if it is a misstatement or misinterpretation. In any case, direct comparison studies have been done with excellent results. My old boss at NIH did volumetric comparisons on chimps brains using MRI, looking for left/right asymmetry in the language areas. In all of a dozen or so cases, he found it, to a degree similar to that in humans. In all but one cases, the left was greater than the right, also as found in humans. The one exception is not a difference, but rather a supporting similarity. The language centers are usually on the left because they are usually contralateral to the dominant hand, usually the right. In a dozen or so humans, chances are one or so will be left handed, with language centers on the right, just as was seen in the chimps. Studying mice is certainly fruitful and the results may well generalize to primate comparison studies. But to say it's the only feasible way to compare primate data is very wrong.
Perfect (Score:2)
I get tired of listing to others peoples pointless conversation I can only imagine how boring listing to a mouse tell me about his weekend is going to be.
I knew it (Score:2)
I for one ... (Score:2)
eep eep eep!
Re:Do the monkey next (Score:5, Informative)
Hasn't that been done already ?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4860483760049380308 [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you never read the story.