Bird babbling and bird abuse
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080501/ap_on_sc/babbling_baby_birds;_ylt=AotRbFRfEeXc6xPsBZTNVy6s0NUE
I thought this was an interesting article until I hit this sentence:
"When the researchers disabled the HVC in adult birds, the LMAN took over again and babbling resumed."
By disabled they surely mean that they cut out part of the bird's brains. It next says:
"McMurray said such studies help illustrate some of the deeper developmental mechanisms that may underlie human language development."
and a little further in the article:
"We still need to understand the process of learning and the reorganization of brain tissue that goes with it, as well as the structure in the song and which aspects are selectively encoded as the bird develops," he said.
I for one don't need to understand why/how birds sing. I'd rather the birds be left with their brains and lives intact. Only by the most tenuous extrapolation can these results and future research he obviously plans to do be applied to humans. "I'm sorry, Mrs. Smith, the reason your child didn't babble and doesn't talk is that there's something wrong with the LMAN and HVC areas of his brain."
I think it's a case of a researcher needs some research to do and the grantees have money to give for something and he wrote a good grant proposal. This is the kind of animal research that especially needs to be banned. I'll going to copy this post and send it to PETA!
This research has much broader goals than determining the brain center where learning to babble takes place. The article described that when birds lose the HVC, they revert back to using the LMAN to reform the skills of being able to sing. By learning more about what happens during and to the process of learning when memory is gone there are many, many valid uses for this knowledge.
By simplifying the research to the extent that you have and clearly stating that you don't understand how birds sing, or care to, just demonstrates exactly why you should not be judging the usefulness of the work, how or why it was funded and if it should be banned.
Ranu, if you think the research is so valuable why don't you donate yourself to that lab and let them cut on your brain. A life no matter how small, is precious. If you're vegetarian strictly for health reason and have no concern for the treatment of animals, I am sorry for you. You, like most of human culture, have a very small soul. The principal of ahimsa is a wonderful thing. You should study it!
Please don't flame.
Oh, sugar, if you think that's flaming you should have been on some of the forums I've read in the past.
I have finches living in my backyard and I dearly love them so this research really hits close to home. I was also working at Texas Tech University when ALF justifyably attacked John Orem Ph.D.'s lab where he was doing horrible experiments on cats. So I know about abusive animal research. I was in the Chemistry Department and I was witness to many revisions to grant proposals where they worked very, very hard to aggrandize their research proposals to make them seem ultra important. There is enormous pressure to "publish or perish". Perish as in lose their jobs and be unable to get another comparable one. The ultimate reason for their research is their own personal gain.
Unrestrained science doing research just for "science's sake" is one of the reasons the Earth is so f*cked up now. Is anyone afraid of genetically modified organisms? Scientists and engineers who sincerely believed they knew better than the evolutionary forces of the Earth (or God if you're religious like I am; God set those forces in action before he "rested".) Now the tiny brains and little lives of finches may be a minor example of research that at its simplest level, stripped of the researchers rhetoric designed to make the research seem more important when it really just isn't at all critical to the survival of this planet and its inhabitants. I reiterate, all life is important and should not be sacrificed except for the very most critical reasons. I will always think that humans should just enjoy the beautiful songs of finches and we do not need to know exactly how it happens.
It's early and maybe if I worked on this post a lot more my points would be better presented and more connected and I realize that I probably won't change your opinion but the research is what it is and what it is, is wrong!
I agree with you TinTexas. I do not support this kind of testing either.
"Unrestrained science doing research just for "science's sake" is one of the reasons the Earth is so f*cked up now."
I have absolutely no doubt that the neuroscientists at MIT are NOT doing "unrestrained science." Any research involving animals is extremely heavily regulated and it is extremely costly and inconvenient. Animal models are used only when there aren't any other alternatives that could answer the question at the same level. Also, your statement "The ultimate reason for their research is their own personal gain" is completely ludicrous. Scientists do not do research for personal gain. After 4 years for a bachelors degree, 5-7 years for a Ph.D and another 2-4 years in a post doc, most researchers make ridiculously little money and it is mostly thankless work as fame in science is extremely hard to come by. Researchers do this work because they are passionate about getting answers to questions that can help us to understand the world we live in and to help us live longer and healthier lives. They don't work with animals because they love to torture "small and precious lives." It is entirely possible to love animals and to advocate for animal welfare and still agree with research that relies on animals.
As a scientist and former university researcher I can assure you that science for the sake of science does happen. I've seen it and I've been involved in it. Some of the biggest egos I've encountered were in the university. I would never presume to make absolute statements about the intentions of scientists as a whole, but for at least some, it is about recognition within scientific circles or about funding and/or tenure. The publish or perish pressure is very real. I perished.
I guess nutgatherer, ranu and I will just have to disagree with each other. I'll never change my opinion and I doubt they'll ever change theirs. I went to the McGovern Institute's website: http://web.mit.edu/mcgovern/html/Principal_Investigators/pis.shtml and some of the research is obviously of great benefit but Fee's research still strikes me as of trivial importance to resolving brain "problems" in humans. It'll never benefit birds.
I don't think the point of a discussion like this is to get someone to change his or her opinion. It's to put ideas and information out there so maybe others will think about their opinions and why they believe what they believe. We are exposed to so much sensationalized crap without hearing the full story, or hearing the information in context. I'm completely fine with you disagreeing with me, TinTexas, but I would hope that it's based on facts and not an emotional reaction to something you don't fully understand. The research on zebra finches could certainly be of great benefit to birds, among other creatures.
I don't think the point of a discussion like this is to get someone to change his or her opinion. It's to put ideas and information out there so maybe others will think about their opinions and why they believe what they believe. We are exposed to so much sensationalized crap without hearing the full story, or hearing the information in context. I'm completely fine with you disagreeing with me, TinTexas, but I would hope that it's based on facts and not an emotional reaction to something you don't fully understand. The research on zebra finches could certainly be of great benefit to birds, among other creatures.
Pray tell me how it could be of benefit to birds. I doubt very many people take their birds to their vet to get their singing voices improved! :D
I'm not sure what nutgatherer had in mind, but bird song is very regional, there are dialects that get passed down that are very specific to each species and geographic group. By their song, birds recognize who they can mate with and identify quality mate choices. As more and more population fragmentation occurs, birds will have a more difficult time being able to survive. If we understand how birds learn and relearn song (like this research is doing) it could do a lot for conservation.
My problem with what you are saying, TT, is that it is really difficult to make valid judgements about how justified this research is (or not) if you don't understand it or know about bird song. It's not fair to yourself as a compassionate person, to others that might benefit from information on language learning/ relearning, or to the researchers to be making uneducated judgements on the validity of the research.
However, we are all the experts on our own morality, and if your argument is that all life is precious, no matter how small, I certainly value that opinion. However, I feel that before I can validly criticize other's choices in the matter, I should be consistent in living that belief.
Mengele and other nazi doctors conducted research on reviving people exposed to freezing temperatures that ethical scientists have shunned for over six decades now. That research could definitely benefit some people but because of how it was obtained, further research using his methods will, I pray to God, never be used again. Is that wrong, because the research could be of benefit? What we have with medical research is a holocaust for the animal subjects. Other ways to perserve populations of birds need to be implemented, like not destroying their habitats!
Good grief, TT, I'm not here to fight with you. I was just suggesting a way that the research could benefit the birds because you asked. Absurd, inaccurate comparisons really are not convincing and instead make light of a very serious historical tragedy. The holocaust was an extermination of the jewish people, with the goal being to eliminate a group of people because their beliefs. Medical research does not have a goal of trying to kill all of the cats because they are cats, nor is there any sadistic pleasure in killing. Mengele and other Nazi doctors were not regulated, which scientists are.
This is the News & Debate board. I was trying to have a debate. One given to emotions maybe more than dry facts but a debate just the same. I put forth a point of view. You put forth your point of view. I counter with a criticism of your point of view and elaboration of my point of view and so on. I think it's an interesting way to learn all sides of an issue but if you're not willing to play, so be it.
Peace
Mengele and other nazi doctors conducted research on reviving people exposed to freezing temperatures that ethical scientists have shunned for over six decades now. That research could definitely benefit some people but because of how it was obtained, further research using his methods will, I pray to God, never be used again. Is that wrong, because the research could be of benefit? What we have with medical research is a holocaust for the animal subjects. Other ways to perserve populations of birds need to be implemented, like not destroying their habitats!
Well, I guess the topic is pretty much done, but I just wanted to say that I think you have a good point here, TT. It's like, suppose we could do experiments in which human infants were infected with some as-yet-incurable disease, and we used them to test the efficacy of some drug or vaccine. That would accelerate the discovery of a cure immensely, no doubt. But it's not ethical. Same for animals, in my view. It is unethical and speciesist to say, "It's ok for us to abuse and kill this many of a certain species so that our species may benefit this much." But if people don't have a problem with speciesism, then I guess we're at a stopping point. And with this research, there is not even a clear motivation that there is some benefit to be had, like many of you have said. I think exploratory science is valuable, but not when it depends on the pain and exploitation of another.