Goldfish Smarter Than Dolphins 530
flergum writes "While dolphins may have big brains, laboratory rats and goldfish can outwit them. It appears that the large brains are a function of their environment rather than intelligence. From the article: 'Dolphins have a superabundance of glia and very few neurons... The dolphin's brain is not made for information processing it is designed to counter the thermal challenges of being a mammal in water.' I guess this means that the Navy will start recruiting and training goldfish for those mine search and destroy missions."
Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey! Where did that cool plastic castle come from?
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
What were we talking about again?
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Never forget to swim forwards (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Number Two: Gold fish.
Dr. Evil: [pause] Right.
Number Two: They're mutated Gold fish.
Dr. Evil: Are they ill tempered?
Number Two: Absolutely.
Dr. Evil: Oh well, that's a start.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Though I think part of the confusion here is, that I always thought goldfish had 3 seconds of short term memory. A short short-term memory does not exclude the ability to learn specific behavior, what learned can just not be constructed from facts with many seconds in between.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Funny)
You're surprised by a dupe on Slashdot?
Re:Trolls (Score:5, Interesting)
"Lesser women" is a contradiction in terms in this context: I'm a man.
I can only take credit for being willing to stick with Andy after his stroke. It's a long and ugly story, but following an argument with his custodial parent several years ago, they won't let me see him. To avoid making the story even longer and uglier and dragging the rest of the family into it, I've chosen not to fight it. The "up" side of his memory loss is that he doesn't realize that I haven't been 'round to see him in a long time.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Because environmental conditions that are unique to each generation of animal cannot be solved by instinct.
Heir Of The Mess: Ants probably don't have much memory, but their programming enables them to function effectively, as well as enabling the group to act as a whole.
Ants need good memory to find their way back home from food. No, not all ants simply follow a chemical trail.
"Biologist Thomas Collett of the University of Sussex in England and his colleagues trained wood ants to walk along a wall to test if the insects also use visual clues.
"Like honeybees, ants stick to familiar routes but are flexible in choosing between routes.
"When ants were placed in a Y-shaped maze with a walls on each side, unfed ants also learned to choose the food path."
http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2005/11/
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is certainly some type of procedural "memory" involved in this computation but it is probably quite different from the procedural or declarative memories that higher animals are capable of.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
The big question in animal intelligence is, "Are any animals other than humans capable of more than operant conditioning?" Interestingly enough, among the best scorers, possibly better than the non-human primates, is Alex, an African Grey parrot [google.com]. Alex can understand and accurately (80-90%) answer questions like "How many blue trucks" (in a set of mixed toys) without prior practice of a particular question, combining his understanding of the question "How many", the color "blue", and the object "truck". He can use numbers reasonably well on fixed quantities, but has trouble counting events. He also knows the concept of "zero". Still, some consider this just to be complex operant conditioning. BTW, I've read their methodology, and it seems quite sound. The person who determines what Alex says, for example, is unaware of what he's being asked)
One big criticism of primate studies, as well, is that most primates either don't form languages in the wild, or form very simple languages. Deaf human children whose parents never teach them sign language will actually make up sign languages and do meta-discussion (conversing about their language using their language). Parrots will make up languages (wild parrot populations even tend to have regional dialects, while different areas have different "language families", with loanwords, just like in human linguistics), but their invented languages tend to be simpler than what they can be taught. Without rigid training, parrots will often display what one may consider "clever" conditioning (such as, if a person doesn't respond to their requests for attention, making the sound of a phone ringing to draw a person into the room), but still conditioning. Also, both in primates and parrots, there's relatively little meta-conversation; it's mostly requests, things with immediate purposes. Even young human children tend to converse about things that are not for a specific purpose frequently.
Complicating studies of intelligence that rely on language is that it's not the only measure of intelligence. For example, corvines (crows, ravens, jays) are more adept toolmakers than psitticines (parrots) and even most primates. They both teach their children how to make/use tools and invent them on their own. Yet, they don't do nearly as well in language tests as psitticines. Are they more or less intelligent?
Anyways, my main point is: this is a complex topic that scholars get into heated debates over, so lets not expect a resolution here.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
KFG
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Informative)
My three fish will swim to the end of the tank I am sat nearest to and badger me into feeding them, but only when the light in the tank is on.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Funny)
And easily persuaded, too. Badgered by some fish? My dog would make this guy his bitch and have him outside throwing the frisbee all day long.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Interesting)
MythBusters answered this myth... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
The burden of proof lies with the individual making the claim. 'Prove me wrong' is not a valid substitute for evidence.
Placing the burden of proof on the individual making the claim is scientific.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there is this obsevation from another researcher in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
And another thing... goldfish jump out of their bowls and *die*. Yep, self destructing is sure a smart thing to do. NOT! It's not like a Dolphin can jump out of the tank, catch a bus to the ocean and take off. Or maybe it might want to stop at a Starbucks on the way. Have to think on that a while. Anyway, it is probably a smarter thing to stay put for them. Glad I figured that out.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, I agree with you, the social complexity of a pod and the level of communication a pod uses when hunting shows that the entire glia/cortex story is loads of bull. The guys who wrote that bull should go to a delphinarium and watch some dolphins for a while.
Re:Smart is one thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
U.S. Navy: Dolphins are Damned Smart (Score:2, Interesting)
What are these tasks? One task is locating anti-ship mines like those found in the Persian Gulf during the Iraq War. Another task is identifying unauthorized swimmers (likes Islamic terrorists) seeking to enter a harbor where naval warships are anchored.
I highly doubt that a gol
But who will rise up... (Score:5, Funny)
Bugs and rats smarter than people???? (Score:4, Insightful)
A fly has pretty much a hard-wired brain, but it is highly effective at finding food and keeping it alive.
Some while ago, some researchers managed to get a dish of 1500 (or 15000??) rat brain cells to fly a 747 simulator -- including handling complex actions like landing with wind shear. I bet it took less time to train the rat brain than it takes for a human to attend flight school. I guess a rat brain in a pilot's uniform doesn't pick up as much skirt though.
Re:Bugs and rats smarter than people???? (Score:5, Funny)
Who won?
I guess a rat brain in a pilot's uniform doesn't pick up as much skirt though.
No, but I'd hazard that a rat brain in a rat picks up a fair bit of tail.
KFG
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
True, but they are nonetheless capable of very complex behaviour even if incapable of learning. Here is a brief description of the brain of your adversary: "The brain of a blowfly (Phormia regina Meigen) weighs on the average 0.85 milligrams. Its maximum linear dimension is 1583 microns. It probably contains not more than 100,000 cells."
Source: "The Hungry Fly" by V.G. Dethier, (c) 1976. It's a 488 page hardcover book with maps and wiring diagrams of the fly
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Goldfish smarter? (Score:5, Funny)
Well I'm on to you, dolphins! I'm putting the word out! I know you're smarter than goldfish and
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The only thing smarter than a goldfish (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bt6K521o3Y [youtube.com]
Re:The only thing smarter than a goldfish (Score:5, Funny)
Smarter or more suicidal? (Score:5, Funny)
Truly an astounding display of cognition.
Furthermore (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Glia are no longer considered 'noncomputational' by neuroscientists. Recent research seems to show that glia, and not just neurons, may perform computational tasks. This is highly controversial at present, but we are far from being able to say that just because an animal has lots of glia that that does not indicate a potential for high brain functions.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, and in pigs and in dogs. There is even evidence that a few very smart cats can as well.
So it's not that rare, but it so far it's only found the most adaptable of mammals.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you know the whole dog and mirror gag, you can experiment at home. Some stupid dogs will at first react to a mirror as if it's another dog, while most will ignore it, but if you train your dog in using a mirror you can clearly see that over tim
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
When the scientists took apart Einsteins brain [nih.gov], they found that it was brimming with glial cells. Does that make him stupid ? Heck, I want my brain to contain more glials now
I am not sure whether this study is fully correct, if it is surmised only on the fact that it has more g
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/06/0
Re:Furthermore (Score:4, Insightful)
Your example doesn't constitute the proof you think it does. If you are staring at each other through a mirror, that means YOU recognize its mirror image, and in return it recognizes YOUR mirror image. It doesn't have to recognize its own mirror image to pass that test. In fact if you stand off to the side while staring at someone in the mirror, you'll notice that you don't even have to see your own image at all to stare at someone else.
The issue is not whether cats can recognize the existence of other objects in a mirror. Clearly they can. The question is whether it can recognize that the cat-shaped object is itself, and use that information in some intelligent fashion.
Douglas Adams will need to change the title to (Score:5, Funny)
Evolution says otherwise (Score:4, Funny)
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28315 [theonion.com]
So as you can see, Douglas Adams was right all along!Bizzaro science (Score:5, Insightful)
So because the dolphin isn't brainless enough to jump out of its tank and beach itself and die in the process, that makes them stupid? I suppose by comparison the child that plays away from road isn't as smart as the kid that plays in traffic, you know, the one that's seeking to "enlarge his environment" by becoming road pizza.
Re: (Score:2)
You like dolphins? Me too. But it didn't stop me from noticing, that the guy also talked about fences partitioning larger tanks. Doplhins can clear
Re:Bizzaro science (Score:5, Insightful)
There is another issue at hand. Their brain is certainly different from ours, and they have followed a different evolutionary path, with a different set of problems. There is no telling what problems they might be GOOD at solving, evidence of one that they are bad at is not evidence that they are dumb. Consider many of the people in history who have been considered the most "intelligent". Many were schitzofrenic, which is fundamentally an inability to tell fact from fiction, and basically properly asses a situation in a rational way. The results of this can look extremly "stupid". Many have had social disorders as well, such that they did stupid things which caused them much pain in their lives... that's pretty "dumb". Still we consider them smart because they could solve problems no-one else could solve. There are many types of intelligence, and lack of one does not imply a low sum of them all.
Basically, we think of intelligence as someone who can solve a problem we can't. Often this implies they can't solve some problems that we can. The differences between humans and dolphins are much larger than within our species, it seems likely that they are good at a fairly disparate class of problems from what we're good at. It has oft been speculated by AI theorists that problems we consider hard are actually fairly easy compared to the problems we consider easy. The one's we consider easy are just the one's evolution needed to get 99.9% right, I.E. walking, learning language, etc. Consider abstract algebra. There are only a few axioms, and that's all there is to learn. From then on it's just a few theorems. learning Abstract math is really quite simple compared to learning natural language, with it's thousands rules and idioms, we're just not wired for it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
How do you know that? That was quite a leap for the scientist to take. There is a lot of assumption there. Y'all are assuming that the dolphin doesn't think of jumping the barrier. What if the dolphin isn't jumping it because it assumed it's not supposed to? (Unlikely, but the point is not to assume anything).
Goldfish
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In this case, I'd say the dolphins and goldfish have one-up on you...
He was CLEARLY talking about jumping out of a tank, into a larger body of water. He specifically mentioned jumping-out of fishing nets, and the like. You know, things that would make sense.
I don't agree with his conclusions, though. It could be that Dolphins recognize they won't get fed if they leave, or
Different environments (Score:4, Interesting)
Carp (eg goldfish) live in an environment in which jumping from one body of water to another offers a real chance of accessing a new environment, e.g. a new pond or stream. It also offers the ONLY chance of survival for carp trapped in small, evaporating puddles of water, which may well be how goldfish register their surroundings.
By contrast, a dolphin has only a fairly low chance of being able to jump into a whole new ocean. A zero chance, in fact.
Therefore, the tendency to jump may be more a reflection of the chance that jumping will do a given creature any good, rather than a sign of intelligence.
Having dived with dolphins in exotic places (Score:5, Interesting)
I've also dived with many varieties of fish, but our interaction with dolphins off Tiputa Pass and Trousers Point (you can find both easily on Google) was qualitatively different from any with fish.
It basically sounds like Japanese propaganda to me. Might be time to make that donation to Sea Shepherd [indymedia.org].
Uhmm. serious article? (Score:5, Insightful)
It ends: "Manger also points to the tuna industry, which under consumer pressure has gone to great lengths to prevent dolphins from being caught and killed by accident in nets.
"If they were really intelligent, they would just jump over the net because it doesn't come out of the water," he said."
Umm, yea, they would if they ware smart? *sigh* - how did this make *any* news at all. Even assuming that the gist of the article is true (about the different types of brain material) the rest is crap - was it "peer reviewed" (as the article points out) by other idiots? Maybe it is all a Rovian plot to discredit Aljazeera.net? I can not take the article and it's contents with any real sense of belief - it is so idiotic that I can not trust the rest of it. That's not to say they are incorrect - just that this individual article is is pure crap and one should not use it to base any belief on.
Re:Uhmm. serious article? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, Paul Manger [nih.gov] is a real scientist who's published 50 articles, most if not all in neuroscience areas, some with pretty high [google.com] numbers of citations, and quite a few of those articles are on cetaceans. The article that the story is based upon was published in Biological Reviews, which has an impact factor of 6 - it's clearly not a tin-pot cruddy journal which publishes any old crap. (and while IFs aren't as good a guide to a journal's credibility as our esteemed granting bodies would like us to believe, they do give some measure of an article's worth)
The news story, although bizarely linked to Aljazeera (!), is attributed to Reuters down the bottom. So it's not quite as "pure crap" as you might think - the odd comments about dolphins not jumping over nets are probably more a result of the journalist trying to make a snappy story out of it all, rather than being the sole basis of Paul Manger's research!
And here's the article abstract itself ... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, because it's not like Reuters has had issues with credibility in the recent past, or anything.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Think I prefer dolphins (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Think I prefer dolphins (Score:4, Funny)
Somebody has to say it (Score:4, Funny)
Short term memory? (Score:2)
If thats true, I will keep the dolphin. Thanks
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Goldfish Anomolies (Score:5, Funny)
. o o O ( Where are all the giant-brained goldfish? )
Fish are so passe... (Score:5, Funny)
Gee, it's an organic Intel vs AMD comparison. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the word "intelligence" was defined as a certain ratio of neurons to glia, he'd have a point. Of course, "intelligence" wouldn't matter so much, because it would only matter in certain situations. Much like "clock speed".
I also don't see how the "jumping out of the bowl/over the net" even deserves a mention...unless we now have a way of interviewing dolphins and goldfish.
Why not use fat (Score:4, Interesting)
Nature (evolution) tends to take the most efficient solution -- natural selection will favour the animals that don't need to expend so much energy to achieve the same result.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It'd be like getting really good insulation on your house, then opening all the windows. It wouldn't stay warm very long.
Old news (Score:2)
in that case (Score:2, Funny)
Navy Finding Nemo (Score:2, Funny)
Sounds like nonsense (Score:5, Insightful)
Nothing of that sort has been demonstrated for goldfish yet, but that does not mean it cannot be done, just that we simply do not know yet.
It has been shown for other species that they show surprisingly intelligent behaviour when trained and it is probably impossible to defined what "more intelligent" should mean for non-humans (it is already quite arbitrarily defined for humans). So the bottom line is - more animals are more intelligent than most people think. And dolphins have shown a quite surprising range of abilities that was not observed in any other marine animal yet.
Another successful disinformation campaign .. (Score:4, Funny)
You guys have obviously already forgotten about the mice then?
= Ch =
What's your point? (Score:5, Funny)
What a crock (Score:5, Interesting)
Dolphins are one of the few creatures that play games, such as playing tag with a peice of seaweed, or blowing bubble rings. This type of behaviour is often an indicator of high intelligence. To say that a Dolphin isn't much smarter than a Goldfish is an insult to both Dolphins and any human with half a brain to realise this article is a crock.
Reason behind dolphins swimming alongside boats (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Dolphins and porpoises don't swim alongside boats, per se. They swim in the bow wave. Presumably they do this because they can get a free ride due to the physics of bow-wave formation. That is, with minimal effort, they can travel at the same speed as the boat. This is similar to birds (or gliders) staying aloft for long stretches of time by keeping themselves in the lift near a sea cliff.
With the dolphins, sometimes there are a bunch hovering around beside the boat because they can't all fit in the bow
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't like this article (Score:4, Insightful)
The study author is not an animal behaviorologist (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly it was a slow news weekend. This report got a ton of coverage, which seems unwarranted given some of the abitrary standards of "intelligence" put forward by the researchers. The Wikipedia article on dolphin intelligence [wikipedia.org] provides a far better balanced view of the subject.
I had a quick look at the University of the Witwatersrand website. Dr. Manger is a lecturer at the School of Anatomical Sciences. He is not an animal behaviorologist.
While Dr. Manger is no doubt qualified to discuss the structure of a dolphin's brain, he is in no better qualified to draw conclusions about dolphin intelligence than any of us here on Slashdot. Perhaps this explains some of his eccentric statements, or why his opinions contrast so sharply with other research indicating a high level of social complexity in dolphin behavior.
That Dr. Manger's study is "peer-reviewed" is really neither here or nor there, since peer review usually occurs within an author's specialty and Manger's most controversial findings transcend his field.
Dr. Manger's comment that dolphins should be smart enough to jump out of tuna nets would seem simply bizzare if they weren't so outright callous.
Dolphins still TASTE better than Goldfish (Score:3, Funny)
The only comparable goldfish dish is too much like Whitebait.
Another problem with this claim... (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, even in humans, there is a "superabundance" of glial cells, in that there are approximately 10 glial cells [athabascau.ca] for every neuron.
The really disturbing part... (Score:5, Insightful)
Back on topic, did you know that as far as we know, only three animals understand the concept of 'pointing at something'? These three are humans, chimpanzees and dolphins. Try it with your cat or dog. It will continue to look at your hand, not where you want it look, until the cows come home. Understanding symbols that stand for vectors in space require a greal deal of abstract thinking.
Obligatory Simpsons quotation (Score:4, Funny)
Lisa: And, you have to cut these up first. Otherwise, animals get caught in them.
Bart: Only the stupid ones.
But can a goldfish do this? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm not saying that they're as smart as me, but they are at least as smart as other higher order animals, and certainly smarter than my goldfish who keeps trying to commit suicide.
Cyprinidae (Score:3, Interesting)
Keeping mature goldfish is reputed to be like keeping dogs -- the fish recognize individuals and respond to them.
Goldfish, like koi, are carp, which are members of the Cyprinid family of fishes. Cyprinids include many species that are well known in the aquarium hobby: danios, rasboras, barbs etc. Many of these species are popular because they are active and considered highly intelligent.
I cycled my tank (established a colony of beneficial waste recycling bacteria) using a school of White Clouds, a cyprinid minnow about an inch long and closely related to rasboras. White clouds are attractive,active, peaceful little fish that are extremely hardy and good for this purpose (incidentally a much better candidate for "goldfish bowls" than goldfish, provided you're committed to daily water changes). They are also astonishingly intelligent.
My White Cloud school mostly patrolled the top third of my tank, snatching food from the surface or as it sank slowly. After several months, I introduced a pair of Corydoras -- a tiny armored cat fish -- to the the tank. Catfish of course are bottom feeders, and are constantly foraging in the gravel. When my White Clouds saw this, they started foraging in the gravel too. Their mouths point upward for snatching food from the surface, so they have to turn over on their backs to do it.
Clearly, this is not "instinctive" behavior. They saw and learned. With a brain that I doubt amounts to more than a cubic millimeter in volume.
The behavior of these fish are interesting; you need to keep a largish school to see the full range. Somewhere around eight or nine fish, suddenly you see a completely different set of behaviors emerge. Clearly they are intelligent fish despite their tiny size, but much of that intelligence comes out when there are enough fish for them to feel comfortable and confident.
Later I introduced some Danios to the tank, which changed the schooling behavior of the White Clouds. Danios, who are supposedly relatively peaceful and playful, have strong hierarchies in which the strongest fish (usually the most irridescent) claim territories. The "playful" behavior, if you watch closely, consists of the strongest fish chasing the next strongest fish out of his territory, and so on down the line. White Clouds aren't hierarchical, but they apparently look enough like danios to get chased. In my tank, the strongest danio cruised a territory consisting the top half foot of water and about 1/3 the surface area of the tank. So the White Clouds started lurking as individuals or groups of two or three in out of the way places. After adding another pair of white clouds, the behavior of the school changed. A pair of the more robust White Clouds who had previously been lurking far from the aggressive danio began patrolling the edge of the his territory. When a weaker white cloud strayed into the danio's territory and the danio attacked, they'd dart in to nip at his flanks. After a few days of this the danio's territory shrunk so that the White Clouds could school like they used to.
Instinctive behavior? In this case, certainly. The point is that these fish have evolved to school in hostile environments; evolution provided them with highly capable brains for the task of survival, depsite their small size. Furthermore, schooling is more than just huddling together to reduce the risk of predation to an individual in the school, these fish have social behaviors that strengthen the school. This means that there are signals, and coordination, and a
They hunt and play like they're intelligent (Score:3, Insightful)
Moreover, the hunting patterns of dolphins are considerably more complex and 'intelligent-looking' than those of goldfish. Dolphins are more social, sure, but it takes more than a bunch of friendly animals to realize that they can use fishing nets to hunt.
Brain size and composition have ALWAYS been a bad indicator of intelligence. If it were the case merely that a big brain was enough to be smart, we'd be badly outclassed. From human to human, we'd see fair differences in intelligence, just based on the size of the brain (assuming that most human brains are composed similarly, and by increasing size, we merely increase the number of cells making up that brain -- tell me if that assumption is terribly off). Obviously this isn't true.
Fact of the situation: we're REALLY bad at figuring out what makes intelligence and what makes the brain work at all. I don't buy that goldfish are smarter yet. One study or group of studies is insufficient to make me believe this in the face of the observable evidence of intelligence or lack thereof.
Jerry Levy (Score:3, Insightful)
Humans have a great big corpus collousum -- it keeps both hemispheres of the brain at the same activation level. When we sleep, both sides function in unison -- I think we're talking deep sleep, here, not REM, where the two hemispheres are both active.
Dolphins cannot sleep for long. They need to breath, which means coming up for air, and so the corpus callousum of the dolphin is small -- the two hemispheres do NOT have the same activation. One goes flat while the other stays active. Hence, the dolphin is only really effectively using about half his brain at any time.
And hence, the dolphin is only half as smart as you'd expect per the brain size.
And so are CNN and FOX. What's your point? (Score:4, Insightful)
You may as well post an article about how scientists have discovered life on the moon and use the Weekly World News as a source.
CNN and FOX News are any better?
Come on. ALL major news sources are propaganda outlets. That's how it works. The problem only arises when people think that their own country's news agency are above corruption.
As for the article, I'm sure the guy interviewed really believes his studies. How does that reflect on Aljazeera? All they're doing is reporting on recent claims from academia. All newspapers report stupid science news. So what?
-FL