Slashdot Mirror


Human Language Gene Changes How Mice Squeak

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."

53 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. this can only end.. by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... with ultrasonic zombie mice.

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:this can only end.. by x2A · · 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.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:this can only end.. by Jurily · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is that such a bad thing?

      One Celine Dion was enough, thank you.

    3. Re:this can only end.. by Jurily · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is slashdot. Everything's related to Microsoft-bashing.

    4. Re:this can only end.. by Z00L00K · · Score: 3, 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!

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    5. Re:this can only end.. by kanweg · · 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

    6. Re:this can only end.. by x2A · · Score: 4, 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

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    7. Re:this can only end.. by an.echte.trilingue · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can't reproduce your border error. I bet it has to do with your iframe having width set in a way that causes it to run under another element that does not take the extra 2 pixel width of the iframe+margin into account.

      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 really pretty rare that you should have to pass variables that way. Just use objects and store your variables in that object.

      They do however show that it IS possible for other browsers to support features that MS have invented, features that (many of them) actually make things better.

      Yes, but a lot of them make life harder, and a lot of IE's quirks are just plain buggy. The point is that the web should be cross-platform: you have a standard and you code to it. Vendors should not have to implement features invented by a third party that may or may not be properly documented (ooxml anyone?). This is why we have the W3C to develop and innovate standards. Hell, MS helped write a lot of the standards that they don't implement.

      Basically, whatever platform you're used to programming for, be it mozilla or ie, the other one IS going to seem alien to you, and stuff is frustratingly not gonna work on it.

      A browser is not a platform. It should implement the standard so that we can code to it... "write once, run anywhere" should not be a paradigm reserved for Java.

      But for you, the one you hate is IE rather than FF, which can only lead to the conclusion that IT'S SUBJECTIVE!

      It is not subjective. There is a standard. While no browser implements it fully, IE is (still) the worst.

      --
      weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
    8. Re:this can only end.. by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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!

      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.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    9. Re:this can only end.. by Progman3K · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the mice will suddenly start to develop extreme communication skills and figure out how to upset the results of the scientists.

      "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."

      --
      I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
    10. Re:this can only end.. by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, 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.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. Massive reverse engineering job by QuantumG · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Sounds like a job for... better tools. :)

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:Massive reverse engineering job by interkin3tic · · 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 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.

  3. Life imitates art? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is how The Secret of Nimh began, isn't it?

    1. Re:Life imitates art? by LaskoVortex · · Score: 2, Informative

      Speaking of Art, here is some cool FoxP2 Art: http://www.foxp2.org/

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    2. Re:Life imitates art? by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wow, that's not what I was expecting when I clicked on a URL that had "fox" in it in a reply to a comment about the Secret of Nimh.

    3. Re:Life imitates art? by ethana2 · · Score: 2, Funny
      I hear the rats of Nicad were pretty dense.

      /me ducks

  4. Where is the line? by hibji · · 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

    1. Re:Where is the line? by hibji · · 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.

    2. Re:Where is the line? by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Insightful
      the classic one anti GM nut jobs bring up is "would you eat pork with human genes in it", and i guess there will be similar objections raised over this. they try to imply it would make you a cannibal and other nonsense, ignoring the fact we already share genetic code with pigs.

      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?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately I believe people will cross many such lines way before human society is ready.

      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 decides what is allowed and how? If people could manage to decide that certain classes of experiments/research on humans are banned, I'm sure they can figure other stuff out.

      And they should start figuring it out. It's clear we're like toddlers stumbling headlong without looking where we might end up.

      Don't forget: if we start putting too many human genes into animals, it starts to be "experimenting on humans". And I think most of us would prefer to live in a world where certain experiments shouldn't be done on humans.

      There's no end of other things to do. So do those first instead.

      --
    4. Re:Where is the line? by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nah, if we are not careful the monsters could be the scientists and rest of us.

      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.

      --
    5. Re:Where is the line? by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, 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 mice. These mice are often used for xenografts, sometimes with human tissue. For example, here's an abstract 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.

    6. Re:Where is the line? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    7. Re:Where is the line? by Bat+Country · · Score: 2, 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 magical property on the animal or object which makes it suddenly one of God's Chosen Few (tm).

      Luddite attitudes like that - people cowering in fear of accidentally doing something that they'd regret later - never accomplish anything of lasting value. The people who are praised throughout history are the ones who made a stir, whether they be Saints, scientists, or world leaders. As a species we admire the agents of change, even if we detest them. We may not approve of their actions, but we stand in awe of what they've accomplished.

      If you as an individual are too frightened of a future in which people are touching the Magic Genome (tm) then there's a simple solution - don't take advantage of any of the fruits of current longevity research and die off before it becomes your problem. The rest of us will probably thank you - when you hold up progress in medical research because you have a moral problem with some guy diddling a mouse in a lab somewhere, you ensure that hundreds of people will die and thousands more will have a reduced quality of life due to the lack of the breakthroughs which may have helped them

      They may not even be alive today. It may be somebody born tomorrow with a congenital defect who is the first beneficiary of this research. It might be your granddad or even yourself. Ethical treatment of test subjects is necessary, obviously, and we (the public) pay a higher price for research because of this need. But to suggest that the mere introduction of human tissue into a subject makes it eligible for equal human rights is magical thinking, and destructive to research.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    8. Re:Where is the line? by QuoteMstr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

      Ain't the truth a pain? Sorry. Many people before you have proposed banning certain avenues of research, and science always wins.

    9. Re:Where is the line? by khallow · · Score: 2, 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 between banning a technology versus allowing the technology (along with any new harms introduced by the new technology). However, this ignores that other less squeamish societies will continue to advance in these areas. What is more likely is that the technology will be developed anyway, but the more Luddite society will receive less of the benefit and more of the harm. I especially don't appreciate it when someone tries to aggravate a problem (for recent examples, see global warming via the banning of nuclear power plants or the war on terrorism) in order to gain power or implement their own social experiment.

      Finally, my view is that the code of laws and rules that underlie society are reactive. Society just doesn't do entirely new issues very well. We need examples first in order to make relatively good decisions.

      And I think most of us would prefer to live in a world where certain experiments shouldn't be done on humans.

      And most of us would like to live in a world where certain other experiments should be and are performed on humans.

      As I see it, uninformed morality is equivalent to no morality. There are benefits and drawbacks to any new technology. If you don't know what those benefits and drawbacks are, then you can't make a rational decision about the technology.

      Having said that, your general concern about creating "human-like" animals seems reasonable. As I see it, certain cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) and primates (the great apes) are probably already sufficiently intelligent (even though that intelligence might not be similar to human intelligence) that we should grant them many of the rights we grant humans (in particular, to not be food animals). I just don't think it is that relevant or useful to base your argument on how unprepared society will be for such changes.

  5. Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by Afforess · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Although this kind of research is interesting, the final results of this would have wide ranging implications that I would rather avoid. 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. This would either prove the sanctity of animal life or deny it, ultimately; I would rather keep the ongoing debate and not have a decision.

    --
    If our elected representatives no longer represent us, do we still live in a Democracy?
    1. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by x2A · · Score: 4, Funny

      The feeling of betrayal releases hormones into the blood that makes a steak taste just great

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    2. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by unfasten · · Score: 5, Funny

      Emotions or not, I'm still eating cows.

      A large dairy animal approached Zaphod Beeblebrox's table,
      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 ... er ... I
      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.

    3. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, 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.

    4. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by billybob_jcv · · 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.
       

    5. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by RancidPeanutOil · · 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 inability to express a thought constitutes an absence of the thought - when in actuality, the expression of the thought is a fundamental component of the thought itself, as though thought is a component vector, and realizing the thought through speech (whether spoken or internally-articulated) is a necessary element. Consciousness is a speech act - everything else is some derivative of our reptile brain - arguably. Of course, that's just our particular mapping. YMMV

    6. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by SlashWombat · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why didn't you put in the bit about mice being the most intelligent creatures on earth, followed by the dolphins.

    7. Re:Interesting, yet I don't want the results... by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, 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?

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
  6. First spoken humain words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering ?

    1. Re:First spoken humain words... by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    2. Re:First spoken humain words... by DamienNightbane · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...I like where this is going.

  7. Re:Do the monkey next by zebslash · · Score: 4, Informative
  8. Well Said by tobiah · · Score: 4, Funny

    One could pick apart the errors of the parent statement, but the fact remains that if a simulation is too slow or wrong to make meaningful predictions, there's something wrong with the simulation.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  9. The Ethics of Sentient Life by reporter · · Score: 3, Interesting
    If the human gene of speech is what gives us sentience, then we should ponder the ethics of sticking the gene into any mammal.

    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.

    1. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by Razalhague · · 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.

    3. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by juuri · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      --- I do not moderate.
    4. Re:The Ethics of Sentient Life by whois_drek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      By that logic, I hate to break it to you but all computers are already sentient. Ever take a hammer to a computer? That noise it makes is proof of its sentience.

  10. Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Talisman · · Score: 4, Funny

    One of the more interesting aspects of basal ganglia is that it, along with the thalamus, make up the limbic system. Located below the cerebral cortex, this is the area of the brain where base emotions are generated, such as aggression and impulse.

    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.

    --

    "Study your math, kids. Key to the universe." -The Archangel Gabriel
    1. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by Knunov · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hah! And here I am again with no mod points.

      --
      Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    2. Re:Basal Ganglia - SHIT! by DynaSoar · · 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.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  11. FOXP2 saga by Device666 · · Score: 2, 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.

  12. Heard: by Tablizer · · 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."

  13. Good Data Points, Not So Good Connections by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  14. one of the major problems of Microsoft by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 4, Funny
    One of the most major problems of Microsoft is their utter lack of drivers for new technology. This was highlighted in Vista - remember "works with Vista?" Well, I bought into the hype and installed it in my newly built Death Star.

    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.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .