Slashdot Mirror


Scientists Build a Smarter Rat

destinyland writes "Scientists have engineered a more intelligent rat, with three times the memory length of today's smartest rats. Reseachers bred transgenic over-expression of the NR2B gene, which increased communication between the rat's memory synapses. Activating a crucial brain receptor for just a fraction of a second longer produces a dramatic effect on memory, as proven by the rat's longer memories of the path through a maze."

302 comments

  1. Needs much more work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    When they can scale it up from lawyers to humans, we might have something useful to talk about.

    1. Re:Needs much more work by interkin3tic · · Score: 2, Funny

      Since they haven't gotten it to work in humans yet, we'll probably forget about it before...OMG, did you hear the latest on Jon and Kate?!?

  2. NIMH by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 4, Funny

    Mrs. Frisby will be pleased...

    1. Re:NIMH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so will Willard

    2. Re:NIMH by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Props for using the F.

    3. Re:NIMH by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I came here to say this exact thing. I guess little Timothy will be alright after all. :)

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  3. The secret... by mishehu · · Score: 0

    ...of NIMH coming soon...

    They always said that science could bread more intelligent rats, but did they REALLY have to???

    1. Re:The secret... by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      NIMH coming soon

      With GATTACA soon to follow?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    2. Re:The secret... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      science could bread more intelligent rats

      Mmmmmm... breaded rats.

    3. Re:The secret... by Loko+Draucarn · · Score: 2, Funny

      science could bread more intelligent rats

      Mmmmmm... breaded rats.

      That's quite a delicacy to us level 5 dwar{f,ve}s, especially with ketchup. That'll sustain you through a whole night of supporting Linux users or mining.

    4. Re:The secret... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Mining Linux Users ROCKS!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:The secret... by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Sony would love to know the secret of NiMH because those batteries don't explode like their Li-Ion ones do.

    6. Re:The secret... by VisceralLogic · · Score: 1

      science could bread more intelligent rats

      Mmmmmm... breaded rats.

      Onna stick! Inna bun!

      --
      Stop! Dremel time!
    7. Re:The secret... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Only 'alf a silver', that's cuttin' me own throat that is!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    8. Re:The secret... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      science could bread more intelligent rats

      Mmmmmm... breaded rats.

      You can really taste the intelligence!

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Spooky by chebucto · · Score: 1, Funny

    While I know that this sort of research is ultimately aimed at improving human life, for some reason I can't shake the image of a mad scientist making super-smart dogs, the experiment going awry, and an apocalyptic future of human-pitbull wars.

    --
    The English word fart is one of the oldest words in the English vocabulary.
    1. Re:Spooky by daveime · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yeah, we'll all need to live longer so we can foil the plans of Pinky and the Brain.

    2. Re:Spooky by Rogerborg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The name escapes me, but I read a SF story that speculated on that. With super intelligent mice, rats, cats and dogs, the rats and cats ate the mice, the dogs ate the cats, then the really smart ones teamed up with people against the rats and other dogs.

      Fair point, they'd be smart enough to realise the value of opposable thumbs. Using can openers for one thing.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:Spooky by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      As long as it stars Will Smith as a loner-scientist who drives a Shelby GT-500 it should be pretty good.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    4. Re:Spooky by rastilin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I know that this sort of research is ultimately aimed at improving human life, for some reason I can't shake the image of a mad scientist making super-smart dogs, the experiment going awry, and an apocalyptic future of human-pitbull wars.

      On that note it won't matter even if they succeed. This country is almost certain to ban it on the basis that it gives the beneficiaries an "unethical advantage" over others. After all we already have piracetam which supposedly does something similar, and that's banned.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    5. Re:Spooky by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      They discovered the rats were more intelligent when one of them began lecturing the scientists on proper lab procedure...

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    6. Re:Spooky by SnapShot · · Score: 1

      What is a piracetam?

      --
      Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
    7. Re:Spooky by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      It's not banned in the USA. Where are you?

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    8. Re:Spooky by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1
      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    9. Re:Spooky by foobsr · · Score: 1

      While I know that this sort of research is ultimately aimed at improving human life, ..

      Like in "The Pentagon (whoever, YMMV) sponsored a research program to evaluate the use of artificially improved mammals in the fight against terrorism"?

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
    10. Re:Spooky by rastilin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's not banned in the USA. Where are you?

      The obvious answer would be, not in the USA. But seriously, there are plenty of countries that try to "protect" it's citizens by legislating away any chemical that looks like it might potentially be dangerous. I simply live in one of those countries. For that matter, I have to get Aspirin over the counter.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    11. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      For that matter, I have to get Aspirin over the counter.

      I think you might be confusing the meaning of over-the-counter. OTC drugs do not require prescriptions.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    12. Re:Spooky by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Could be "Day of the PagBeasts", alternate title "The Fittest". I think the author was Edgar Pagborn, but it could be J.T. McIntosh. Written in the 1940's or 50's.

      I read it once from a library and could never find it again. It wasn't all *that* good, but there was something compelling me to read it again for something I missed the first time. Never did find it. My guess is it never got printed in paperback, and was originally printed in Britain. Given that it had two titles I suspect that it must have had at least two separate printings. (I suppose one could have been in some magazine, but not one that I ever encountered.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Spooky by rastilin · · Score: 1

      I think you might be confusing the meaning of over-the-counter. OTC drugs do not require prescriptions.

      I'm not confusing them, I'm just irritated that I have to ask the staff for Aspirin, as if it's too dangerous to put on the shelf.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    14. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most of the time, at least in the US, the term OTC is used to refer to non-prescription drugs that are stocked on the shelves.

      Over-the-counter drug:

      The term over-the-counter may be somewhat counter-intuitive, since, in many countries, these drugs are often located on the shelves of stores like any other packaged product. In contrast, prescription drugs are almost always literally passed over a counter from the pharmacist to the customer. Some drugs may be legally classified as over-the-counter (i.e. no prescription is required), but may only be dispensed by a pharmacy employee after an assessment of the patient's needs and/or the provision of patient education.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    15. Re:Spooky by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Most of the time, at least in the US, the term OTC is used to refer to non-prescription drugs that are stocked on the shelves. Over-the-counter drug: The term over-the-counter may be somewhat counter-intuitive, since, in many countries, these drugs are often located on the shelves of stores like any other packaged product. In contrast, prescription drugs are almost always literally passed over a counter from the pharmacist to the customer. Some drugs may be legally classified as over-the-counter (i.e. no prescription is required), but may only be dispensed by a pharmacy employee after an assessment of the patient's needs and/or the provision of patient education.

      Ok, what? Now you've lost me.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    16. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Allow me to clarify with one simple distinction:

      Over-the-counter (OTC) drugs are medicines that may be sold to a customer without a prescription from a health care professional, as compared to prescription drugs, which may only be sold to customers possessing a valid prescription.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    17. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Maybe it would also help to point out that it has nothing to do with where the medicine is stocked; it refers to how the transaction is made.

      To make sense of it, look at the broader uses of the phrase "over the counter".

      Direct interaction between two parties without an intermediary.

      Through direct trade.

      Over-the-counter (OTC) trading is to trade financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, commodities or derivatives directly between two parties.

      Thus purchasing drugs "over the counter" is a simple transaction between you and the drugstore, without requiring the approval of a doctor. If a prescription is required, it is no longer a simple transaction between the two of you... you have to get the doctor, a third party, to approve of the transaction.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    18. Re:Spooky by rastilin · · Score: 1

      Maybe it would also help to point out that it has nothing to do with where the medicine is stocked; it refers to how the transaction is made. To make sense of it, look at the broader uses of the phrase "over the counter". Direct interaction between two parties without an intermediary. Through direct trade. Over-the-counter (OTC) trading is to trade financial instruments such as stocks, bonds, commodities or derivatives directly between two parties. Thus purchasing drugs "over the counter" is a simple transaction between you and the drugstore, without requiring the approval of a doctor. If a prescription is required, it is no longer a simple transaction between the two of you... you have to get the doctor, a third party, to approve of the transaction.

      Ok, why are you telling me this?

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    19. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Because I'm still pretty sure you were confused.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    20. Re:Spooky by rastilin · · Score: 1

      I made two points

      1. Piracetam requires a prescription in my country.
      2. It irriates me that I need to get Aspirin over the counter.

      I never said anything about Aspirin requiring a prescription or piracetam being able to be bought over the counter without one. I can't believe you posted so many times, but failed to pick up on that.

      --
      How do you kill that which has no life?
    21. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      What is so bad about having to get aspirin over the counter? How else would you like to get it – by prescription?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    22. Re:Spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In related news, Infosys has announced the availability of new .NET programmers that are cheaper replacements for Indian programmers. The company would not discuss rumors it was replacing cubicles with small wire cages, however it has ordered tiny tiny keyboards and cursor-positioning device it referred to as 'not mice. Definitely not mice. No, we are not using mice.'

    23. Re:Spooky by Kehvarl · · Score: 1

      The other poster was attempting to clarify that "Over The Counter" simply means "you can get it without a prescription". You're stating that where you live you must speak with a pharmacy technician to acquire aspirin. This doesn't make it "OTC" since it's "OTC" even if it's on the shelf. The fact that you need to ask at the counter is unrelated to the classification as a non-prescription medication.

      So in actuality we're dealing with 3 different ways to acquire medication:
      Over-the-counter on-the-shelf: These are over the counter medications that are just sitting on the shelf for you to pick up and purchase

      Over-the-counter regulated: These are medications that you can get without a prescription, but for which you will have to inquire at a pharmacy counter.

      Prescription: You need a prescription, and you need to inquire at the pharmacy counter.

      Annoying, isn't it?

    24. Re:Spooky by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 1

      Brain Wave, by Poul Anderson.

    25. Re:Spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's no need to fear! UnderDog is here!

    26. Re:Spooky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...you need to ask at the counter...

      Annoying, isn't it?

      Yes, very much. I believe it should be the right of any adult sentient being to control it's own body and consciousness. There should be no need to consult with a doctor or the government to alleviate one's pain. Of course, I think it should also be a human right to receive affordable health care, especially preventative medicine.

      Since I live in the US, I propose that the best way to fix the former problem is with a Constitutional Amendment. Guaranteeing ultimate control of consciousness and corporeal body to every adult sentient being (and parent/guardian of minors with reasonable safeguards) would finally end attempts at legislating morality like Prohibition, outlawing certain sexual orientations and practices, meddling with reproductive decisions and end-of-life autonomy.

      Since this is a geek site, let me elaborate with some speculation as well. If ever we encounter sentient life elsewhere in the Multiverse, what better first act of good faith than showing them a copy of our highest law -- which already guarantees them individual freedom! There are other implications as well: when we discover a way to determine sentience without communication we may well discover that chimpanzees or dolphins are sentient and must be accorded rights under the law.

      Posting AC to preserve moderation

      glarbl_blarbl (I can't believe I have my ./ UID# memorized, my god, what have I become!)

      810253

    27. Re:Spooky by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      That's the fellow! Well recalled, sir.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    28. Re:Spooky by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      the surest proof of intelligent life on other planets is the fact they have not publicly come here.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    29. Re:Spooky by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      The surest proof no intelligent life exists on other planets is the fact they have not nuked the whole planet from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    30. Re:Spooky by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The name escapes me, but I read a SF story that speculated on that. With super intelligent mice, rats, cats and dogs, the rats and cats ate the mice, the dogs ate the cats, then the really smart ones teamed up with people against the rats and other dogs.

      I saw something similar to what you describe only much more schlocky in the late-80s or early-90s Twilight Zone series. A pair of young men exploring an abandoned lab find the corpses of giant mutant rats, which had been killed by giant mutant cats, which had been killed by giant mutant dogs, which had, the boys concluded, been killed by "something bigger". Which turned out to be a giant spider. Obviously! The spider was still alive and ate them both. The end.

      I don't think that series lasted long. :P

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  5. The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by treczoks · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Flowers for Algernon" was the first association that popped up from the depths of my mind...

    1. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by tsstahl · · Score: 1

      I went with Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. Their leader is a rat formed in a lab...

    2. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by OshMan · · Score: 1

      Me too, but if there are any younger folks on the list perhaps N.I.M.H or even "the Brain" would strike the same nerve.

    3. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by mishehu · · Score: 1

      Well, can't believe I still remember this, but Splinter and the turtles were all exposed to radioactive waste... So he wasn't exactly smart because he was a lab rat. He actually was a pet of his master Yoshi, one of Japan's finest shadow warriors...

    4. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Elenor?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    5. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

      I was wondering if someone was going to bring this one up.......I believe the rat's name was Algernon and his handler was Charlie.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
    6. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Ah. I read that as Aragorn.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    7. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Me too, but if there are any younger folks on the list perhaps N.I.M.H or even "the Brain" would strike the same nerve.

      NIMH was the first thing I thought of (the Bluth movie, not the original book or the... eugh... sequel). But I take slight issue with the "younger folks". I know "younger" is relative, but I'm 30 and I didn't see it when it came out, being only three(ish) at the time.

      But people who think of Pinky & the Brain? THEY'RE just kids!:)

    8. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      So you probably meant 'Arwen'? ;)

      Unless you were referring to Eleanor, daughter of Samwise Gamgee? ...sorry, I'm in an irritatingly pedantic mood today. :P

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    9. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Elenor was the small white flower that Aragorn held when they got to Loth Lorien. Elenor was named after it.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    10. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      Wow. O.o I bow to your superior Middle Earth lore. Well played!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    11. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by chuckymonkey · · Score: 1

      That was a heart rending book, and it spoke to one of my most personal primal fears. Living with a reduced mental capacity and knowing it would be a living hell for me.

      --
      "Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
    12. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by OshMan · · Score: 1

      No offense intended. My point is that the mid 40s and up camp (including me ;) are likely to think of Flowers for Algernon first. Since many of us already read it in high school when secret of NIMH came out. And were perhaps a bit (or more) too old for the movie. People roughly your age I would expect might think first of Secrets of NIMH, as you point out already in sequel mode and no doubt on TV a lot. I don't know how many 20 and under there are on Shashdot, but I expect they might think first of Pinky and the Brain. I know about the later 2 because I have kids. I'm not sure where the mice from Hitchhiker's Guide fall in. But it's a reoccurring theme, or perhaps meme and I find that interesting. Maybe the real question is how old are the researchers?

    13. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by ancientt · · Score: 1

      What about the Stainless Steel Rat?

      --
      B) Eliminate all the stupid users. This is frowned upon by society.
    14. Re:The rats' name is not 'Algernon', or is it? by OshMan · · Score: 1

      Hmmm didn't know that one, thanks looks interesting. But I may have to disqualify him for not actually being a rat ..... I think.

  6. So the meaning of life changes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    3 * 42 = 126?

    or does this work exponentially :)

    Strangely enough, but to prove I am not a bot in a post about evolving mice I needed to type evolve into the textfield.

    1. Re:So the meaning of life changes? by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      So you're not a bot, but you are a trained monkey?

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  7. Rat 2.0 : Modern Rat by slyborg · · Score: 1

    Special upgrade pricing - 25% off with trade-in of your old rat.

    1. Re:Rat 2.0 : Modern Rat by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      You want to wait for SP1. Trust me.

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:Rat 2.0 : Modern Rat by EEDAm · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh... so that's what they meant by The Ratpack....

    3. Re:Rat 2.0 : Modern Rat by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      When will we get a rat made of stainless steel.

    4. Re:Rat 2.0 : Modern Rat by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      En la venonta, espereble.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
  8. The world needs this.... by gilesjuk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    We need this about as much as we need a much stronger more deadly flu virus.

    When rats are vermin and carry disease, why make them even better a survival? or are they scientists thinking that if they get clever enough they'll start writing software for a living?

    1. Re:The world needs this.... by somersault · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I wish there was a "-1, pathetically paranoid party pooper" mod..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    2. Re:The world needs this.... by captainpanic · · Score: 1

      The world doesn't need this rat.
      But perhaps our kids will actually also have a better memory because of it. Then they can all still remember the history lessons they learned in school when they get to a position of power. And humanity will actually be able to learn from mistakes made in the past. And the world will be a better place. Free drinks for everyone.

    3. Re:The world needs this.... by Wargames · · Score: 2, Funny

      Did you consider a smarter rat might learn some ratonal hygiene and stop carrying deseases? Rats would write more ratonal software.

      --
      -- Each tock of the Planck clock is a new world and here we are still life. --
    4. Re:The world needs this.... by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Strangely enough, there's an i in rational.

      Unless you're an engineer; then it isn't strange at all: there's no j.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    5. Re:The world needs this.... by ktappe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wish there was a "-1, pathetically paranoid party pooper" mod..

      I'm glad there's not, because this really is a dangerous thing. If one of these rats escapes we will be in for some hurting. Rats are already rather smart--they know what traps are and how to avoid them, for example. Go live in a rat-infested portion of a city and then tell us again anyone objecting to this experiment is "paranoid".

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    6. Re:The world needs this.... by Gerafix · · Score: 4, Funny

      The solution is easy, we just have to breed smarter cats and let them loose. What could possibly go wrong?

    7. Re:The world needs this.... by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Ever have a rat in your house (other than your brother in law)? I have. They are smart enough.
      Last thing I need is one that figures out how to change the locks when I'm at work.

      The last little bastard cost me over $1500 in damages the last time. I really don't need a smarter one, thanks anyway.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    8. Re:The world needs this.... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I've never even seen any rats outside of a petstore, sorry, let alone know of any "rat-infested" areas.. I've seen one live mouse and plenty of dead mice and voles caught by our cats over the years, but no rats.

      I still think it's stupid to let paranoia get in the way of scientific progress. Yes, if one of them escapes then we could have slightly smarter rats in some places. Oh noes..

      We've dealt with rat problems before. and we can do it again if necessary :P It's one of the things that scientific progress is good for.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    9. Re:The world needs this.... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Actually they will just remember better how they not learned the history sessions, and successfully cheated at their less-intelligent teachers who didn't yet have the genetic enhancement.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    10. Re:The world needs this.... by russotto · · Score: 5, Funny

      Go live in a rat-infested portion of a city and then tell us again anyone objecting to this experiment is "paranoid".

      It's not a real problem. These rats with their superior maze-following ability will be nerds among rats, and thus will not reproduce in the wild.

    11. Re:The world needs this.... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I just don't get why people are focusing on the whole rat part of the story rather than the cool part. I didn't see people complaining about the glow in the dark mice, or the ones with ears growing out of their backs etc. or any of the other horrible things we've done to rodents. As soon as we give them something that is actually beneficial, everyone starts whining..

      Probably exaggerating a bit there, but that's my style.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    12. Re:The world needs this.... by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We've dealt with rat problems before. and we can do it again if necessary

      You mean, we're constantly fighting a war against rats in urban and rural areas. The suburbs tend not to have rat problems (you get skunks, opossums, and raccoons, though).

      Do you know how much we spend in the US on rat remediation? And how much damage is caused by rats? Total economic cost of alien-species rats in the US is (a href="http://people.hws.edu/bshelley/Teaching/PimentelEtal00CostExotics.pdf">estimated to be $19 Billion.

      Just saying... just because we CAN do it, doesn't mean it's not expensive and wasteful to actually do it, when the need for expensive action can be averted.

      To me, it's very simple. When the experiment is over, slaughter the rats. Conduct the experiments in a secure enough facility that the rats can;t escape from it.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    13. Re:The world needs this.... by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      I just don't get why people are focusing on the whole rat part of the story rather than the cool part. I didn't see people complaining about the glow in the dark mice

      Glowing mice are easier to find in the dark. Why should we complain? :-)

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    14. Re:The world needs this.... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      This would make no difference since cats are already the dominant species on this planet.

    15. Re:The world needs this.... by Krneki · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Exactly and even if the cats becomes a problem we just breed smarter dogs. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    16. Re:The world needs this.... by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Funny

      They'll be busy playing D&D?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    17. Re:The world needs this.... by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      Don't be daft. They used rats because they're a standard experimental animal not because they want to make some kind of super rodents. Research it rats is often applicable in other species; like humans.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    18. Re:The world needs this.... by hairykrishna · · Score: 1

      Lab rats, like pet fancy rats, are smaller and less aggressive than their wild cousins. They'd be much more likely to be killed by than bred with any wild rats they meet.

      --
      "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
    19. Re:The world needs this.... by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      We need this about as much as we need a much stronger more deadly flu virus.

      This is just a stepping stone to create things that will change the world for the better..

      ...For instance, a monkey with four asses.

    20. Re:The world needs this.... by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      And humanity will actually be able to learn from mistakes made in the past.

      Yeah, "In the future, don't dick around with the rat's genetics."

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    21. Re:The world needs this.... by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      This is just a stepping stone to create things that will change the world for the better..

      ...For instance, a monkey with four asses.

      How the hell does a monkey with four asses change the world for the better?

      Now, a monkey with five asses, that would be a marvelous achievement.

    22. Re:The world needs this.... by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      The maze is a perfect scenario.

    23. Re:The world needs this.... by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      It'd be interesting to see what other factors the increased memory changed. I wouldn't be surprised to see a heightened sense of nervousness, more OCD, and bad hygiene.

    24. Re:The world needs this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Well, fuck it. We're going to five asses."

    25. Re:The world needs this.... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This just improves their memory. The solution is to feed them something that destroys their memory. Propylene Glycol might work. (It seems to work for cats, but that might be species specific.)

      A better solution is a trap that's 100% lethal. Here's one:
      Take a barrel, partly fill it with water. remove much of the top. In the center at the top, place the bait suspeded on a platform accessible through two metal walkways. So arrange things that when the bait is touched (or slightly before) a circuit is closed that starts the bait-platform and walkways revolving while simultaneously sending a (moderately) high voltage shock into the animal closing the circuit. The rat is thrown off into the water. If it lives through the shock, it's swimming at the bottom of a barrel with no exit it can reach. The trap resets itself.

      There's lots of variations on this theme. They're all fancier than the current rat traps, but they are close variations of traps that have a long history of success. (My grandfather just used a platform that was unbalanced by the weight of a rat, and a walkway that didn't provide much in the way of footholds. I wanted to fancy it up, but his answer might be better...though mine would make any that survived leery of metal, and that would be worthwhile.)

      If they get too subtle for the trap mentioned (and it's obvious variations) it'll be easy to keep them out of places. One could also make nice traps involving things like liquid Nitrogen.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re:The world needs this.... by somersault · · Score: 1

      To me, it's very simple. When the experiment is over, slaughter the rats. Conduct the experiments in a secure enough facility that the rats can;t escape from it.

      I was thinking something similar, but if we've learned anything from cartoons and b-movies it's that it's not a simple matter to contain genetically enhanced super-animals/diseases/viruses/super-intelligent-rodents.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    27. Re:The world needs this.... by brkello · · Score: 1

      If you think that if these rats escaped and reproduced that "we will be in for some hurting"...I think that is the very definition of paranoid. You are assuming that the better memory would make them either reproduce more or be more of a nuisance. But really, you would fight them in the same way and you have no proof that they would want to reproduce more. To get rid of them, you would put out poison food or traps. A longer memory isn't going do it much good when it eats poison and dies.

      --
      Support a great indie game: http://www.abaddon360.com
    28. Re:The world needs this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      R&R. Ratholes & Rodents.

    29. Re:The world needs this.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      No, we need stupider cats. The intelligent ones get human slaves to feed them, the stupid ones have to hunt rodents for food.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    30. Re:The world needs this.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      What country do you live in? In the UK it was estimated a few years ago that anywhere you stand you are not more than 20m from the nearest rat. When they cut down a load of trees in the park near my house they displaced a lot of the rat population into the surrounding urban areas and a couple of years ago I got home from a New Years Eve party to discover rats had got in and chewed up the carpets and any food or potential bedding material they could find.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    31. Re:The world needs this.... by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      As much as it pains me to admit as a cat person, but you'd be better of with smarter dogs. More precisely, terriers.

      Cats are lousy ratters. A cornered rat will fight, which goes against the basic instinct of most cat breeds. A cat expects an animal in the general shape of a rat to freeze in fear, like a mouse does. Terriers on the other hand are bred to hunt and fight aggressive prey like rats and bigger.

      Smarter cats will just lead to accelerating the coming of our feline overlords, reducing us to the role of mobile can openers.

      Mart

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    32. Re:The world needs this.... by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      Hi, rat-infested portion of a city resident here.

      The answer to rat control is very simple -- housing owners and operators need to pay for trash receptacles with heavy lids. You don't need rat poison, you don't need to worry about The Rat That Never Forgets, you just need to put something on top of the food that a 1.5-lb animal can't lift.

      There's really no concern about the Smart Rat Gene getting into the wild.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    33. Re:The world needs this.... by kaini · · Score: 0

      1. Super-intelligent rats 2. Super-intelligent cats 3. Super-intelligent dogs 4. Hyper-intelligent gorillas 5. ????? 6. PROFIT!

      --
      please restate bitrate in libraries of congress per hour.
    34. Re:The world needs this.... by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      They'll be busy playing D&D?

      They won't be hard to find. Track down theft of any sourcebooks relating to Ravenloft, particularly ones containing info on Richemulot.

      (Since that's insanely obscure - the domain of Richemulot has a lot of rats, in all shapes and sizes. The darklord is a wererat, in fact.)

    35. Re:The world needs this.... by Cornflake917 · · Score: 1

      icanhazcheezeburger.com will change to MayIPleaseHaveAGardenBurger.com?

    36. Re:The world needs this.... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      The solution is easy, we just have to breed smarter cats and let them loose. What could possibly go wrong?

      We might not be able to breed smarter dogs to chase the smarter cats?

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    37. Re:The world needs this.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Complete failure.

      Scientists have been genetically engineering rats for years as well as fruit flies (who are great subjects since they only live 28days so it's very quick and easy to see the effects of genetic changes over the creature's lifetime). I look forward to the next article that mentions GM fruit flies and your post about how terrible enhanced flies will be to fruit growers or whatever.

      You're rather late to the fear-of-science party.

    38. Re:The world needs this.... by dpastern · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you, but a domestic rat doesn't stand a chance in the wild. Easy pickings for predators.

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    39. Re:The world needs this.... by dpastern · · Score: 1

      I hate to tell you, but rats are far smarter than cats. Rats are one of the few species apart from humans that have cognitive thought processes. They are already doing experiments with rats moving objects with the power of their thought alone. Consider domestic rats - they are far happier to intermix with their owners than cats are. Cats aren't bad pets, rats just make better pets :-)

      Dave

      --
      Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. --Martin Luther King Jr.
    40. Re:The world needs this.... by somersault · · Score: 1

      I live in the UK yep. The only thing that I've thought is an indicator of any kind of rat problem here recently is that some of the cabling at this end of the building has deteriorated over the years - but whether that's from rats chewing up the cables, or for other reasons (we test turbines right outside, sometimes there's a lot of vibration) I don't know.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    41. Re:The world needs this.... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Squeak squeak slashdot squeak squeak?

    42. Re:The world needs this.... by hex+socket · · Score: 1

      Having once dealt with a persistent rat problem by introducing a cat, I can testify that the cat does not need to actually kill rats to solve the problem. Though the cat could not get to the rats (which lived in the walls) the rats vanished very quickly once there was a cat in the house. I concluded at the time that the rats smelled the cat, or perhaps the ammonia in the cat's urine, and fled.

      For what it's worth, I had been killing the rats with traps for about two years prior to getting the cat. The smell of dead rats apparently does nothing to discourage other rats.

  9. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Clap clap*

    Way to be original. How about forgetting the boring, pointless, stupid "Oh-my-God-I-can-use-a-meme!" references and contribute something intelligent. Or fuck off back to your imageboard.

  10. Any news on Charlie? by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

    I will spring for the flowers, Charlie. Just don't act like a jerk.

  11. Memory is an interesting thing by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even the most forgetful person can be reminded of an event and recall it with vivid clarity. Alzheimer's sufferers can overcome some of the difficulties of the disease with a device like the Life Recorder.

    So when we say that someone's (or some rat's) memory is improved, what exactly is improved? Is it the recall ability? If so, does that mean that the rat is somehow able to logically filter out unnecessary information to reach the important memory? Or does it mean that the rat's memory has been structured in a better way? Is it only a spatial thing, or can it work for any type of information?

    As someone with a bad memory, I would be very interested in understanding how this actually works within the rat's brain.

    1. Re:Memory is an interesting thing by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... so the event is still there in our memory, we just can't locate it? So this is like increasing the size of the hash table it's indexed with, perhaps...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Memory is an interesting thing by ikefox · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, the NR2B gene is encoding for a very common and well known receptor within both rat and human brains - the NMDA receptor. These receptors have been the target of the majority of recent studies into working memory and synaptic plasticity, or so-called "long-term potentiation". Basically, the NMDA receptor is the most likely cause of memory reinforcement. The idea is that when two neurons fire simultaneously, the connection between them is strengthened for a long period of time. That is, the post-synaptic neuron becomes more sensitive to input from the pre-synaptic neuron. This effect is input-specific, in that it is only effective between the two specific neurons involved, and no similar input from other pre-synaptic neurons is necessarily potentiated. Most LTP relies on the NMDA receptors to function, via the calcium ion channels within most synapses. This is why increasing the number of NMDA receptors would likely reflect a quantitative increase in memory. This isn't exactly breaking news - researchers have known about the NMDA receptors/NR2B gene for years, and I've seen studies from several years ago with the same approximate findings in animal models.

    3. Re:Memory is an interesting thing by Veggiesama · · Score: 1

      As someone with a bad memory, I would be very interested in understanding how this actually works within the rat's brain.

      Don't worry about it. You'll forget all about it tomorrow.

  12. Pinky and the Brain by BaldNerd · · Score: 1

    It's Pinky and the Brain, Pinky and the Brain. One is a genuis The other's insane. They're laboratory mice Their genes have spliced. NARF!

  13. Ah... That is where by kid_oliva · · Score: 1

    Hamato Yoshi got his pet from.

    --
    I eat Karma for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. That's why I don't have any.
  14. Faster Memory? by Xebikr · · Score: 4, Funny

    Activating a crucial brain receptor for just a fraction of a second longer produces a dramatic effect on memory

    So they overclocked the rats? Cool!

    1. Re:Faster Memory? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      No, I think they added a bit or two to the serially-transmitted address size.

      They tripled the memory size, so I'm still trying to figure out whether this implies that our brains operate in base-3 or whether some of the newly-created address space is unaddressable for reasons yet unknown.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Faster Memory? by new+death+barbie · · Score: 3, Funny

      ...whether some of the newly-created address space is unaddressable for reasons yet unknown.

      You need a 64-bit rat to access all the extra memory space.

      --

      It's supposed to be completely automatic, but actually you have to press this button.

    3. Re:Faster Memory? by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      You're thinking of a parallel architecture, where a longer address takes more bus connections. In a serial connection, it just takes longer to transmit it. It's more of a firmware update than a hardware mod.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    4. Re:Faster Memory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But will it be a reason good enough for enthusiast end-users to upgrade?

    5. Re:Faster Memory? by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      *New York italian mafia accent* Then I simply chop that rat up a second time! No problem, boss! Now where's my knife...?

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  15. Re:I for one by Jhon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Seeing these posts is like listing to Monty Python's "I Like Traffic Lights" song.

  16. Gold Fish by Krneki · · Score: 1

    So what is next? No more gold fish memory jokes?!!!!

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Gold Fish by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Finally, when someone tells me I have the memory of a goldfish... wait, what was I going to say?

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  17. Intellligence and Genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So we are all agreed then that genes can have a major impact on intelligence? And it follows then that like the genes for say height and pigmentation, the genes that contribute to intelligence have different distribution patterns in different populations? And that James Watson was unfairly pilloried for his opinions on this matter?

    1. Re:Intellligence and Genes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but the heterogenic-and-equal society is more a religion than a science, except that the only people who wanted to limit that particular religion lost the war and the inquisition is still going strong. I'd agree if I could, but I can't, so I won't.

  18. We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Kind of old news; the first report that NR2B overexpression improves rodent performance in some behavioral tests of learning and memory was was published in 1999. The nice thing here is that the investigators now have it working in the rat, which is a more difficult animal for transgenic studies, and a better one for behavioral work and electrophysiology.

    Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened? Presumably, there is a selective advantage to improved learning and memory. Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage. Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired?

    1. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened? Presumably, there is a selective advantage to improved learning and memory. Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage.

      The downside is that now the Rats crave human brains...

    2. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by John+Hasler · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective
      > advantage.

      Higher energy requirements would be a good bet.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    3. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but that's the case pretty much every time you overclock...

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      If intelligence is a benefit, why aren't all animals already as smart as humans?

      You see... evolution does not work that way. It is not zero-sum. It is not itself intelligent. It is perfectly possible that such a mutation is entirely beneficial, but simply hadn't occurred naturally.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    5. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by steelfood · · Score: 2, Funny

      To answer this question, I reference Idiocracy.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Higher energy requirements would be a good bet.

      It's a possibility, but I don't think so. The receptors don't use a lot of energy. The baseline cost of maintaining the neurons won't change. So the main incremental cost will be the pump costs for repolarizing after action potentials. But it doesn't seem likely that overall firing is massively increased, or they'd probably be seizing.

    7. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by debrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Presumably, there is a selective advantage to improved learning and memory. Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage. Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired

      As you suggest, there are two possibilities why this advantage hasn't occurred naturally:

      1. It adds no selective advantage;

      2. The advantage is outweighed by the costs.

      There is a third possibility, namely that the set of mutations necessary to give rise to this advantage are too improbable to occur (or perhaps even fundamentally impossible).

      Based on no knowledge whatsoever, I suspect that there probably is some selective advantage to higher intelligence in rats, over long enough periods of time. I hypothesize that the rats lack the ability to effectively dissipate heat from a highly active brain, and concurrently those evolutions that allow more effective dissipation of heat (e.g. baldness) are contrary to (or have never occurred concurrent with) the selective advantage of the intelligence. Perhaps we will breed intelligent, bald rats.

    8. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by RJBeery · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened?

      It HAS happened, but those affected (rats included) simply can't get laid to propagate the phenomenon...

    9. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      I hypothesize that the rats lack the ability to effectively dissipate heat from a highly active brain,

      That's probably a pretty poor hypothesis. Heat rejection depends in part on the surface area to volume ratio. It's easier to reject heat from something small than something big. In fact, small mammals have a hard time just keeping their temperatures UP.

      I'd guess it costs energy that could be used for reproduction or maturing faster or just getting away from predators. But that is just a wild guess, too.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by topcoder · · Score: 1

      Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage. Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired?

      Rats now become socially awkward, start becoming interested in programming and videogames, so losing any chance to succesfully reproduce.

    11. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by MattSausage · · Score: 0

      Well, my understanding of evolution is that it only works on disadvantageous genes. Specifically, a trait has to keep a rat from reproducing, or reproduce less often in order to weed out that trait. Perhaps the reason this hasn't come up naturally is because there is no pressure exerted on the rat's reproductive cycle if he can't remember as long as some other rat. Basically, a rat only has to be as smart as necessary to reproduce. Perhaps there is no advantage to a longer memory, remembering longer simply doesn't get you more tail.

    12. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by xianthax · · Score: 1

      Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage.

      massive assumption and very wrong from my experience.

      In the US for instance the average high school drop out has more children than the average college graduate. Quite often you can see that the least educated and least rationally thinking humans end up with the most children, thus are making the larger contribution to the gene pool. Not that education level is directly correlated to intelligence, but i think there is some link.

    13. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

      maybe remembering all the crap you did to other rats (or people) to survive (steal their resources) causes depression and reduces liklihood of reproduction.

      We as a society certainly have a selective memory and blinkered recognition of history and current events.

      --
      "If still these truths be held to be
      Self evident."
      -Edna St. Vincent Millay
    14. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does improved memory necessarily mean improved intelligence? Yes it would be a big help to be able to use more information at once in making decisions, but you still need the ability to synthesize that information into a logical and useful conclusion.

      Would this help us remember the right information? What a rat needs to remember to navigate a maze isn't at all the same as what I need to remember to program. That thought process is very roughly analogous, but not the information required.

      Not to mention, being able to forget is critical to our mental health. Improved memory is useful, but not at the expense of losing our ability to forget. What good is it to remember everything if that means you're permanently paralyzed in fear by a trauma that happened thirty years earlier?

    15. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      sweet! better memory *and* a weight loss treatment in one. :-P

    16. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      There is a third possibility, namely that the set of mutations necessary to give rise to this advantage are too improbable to occur (or perhaps even fundamentally impossible).

      If it were something complicated, like multiple specific mutations or introduction of a gene that the animal doesn't have to begin with, this is plausible. But this is merely increasing the expression of a gene that is already there, and there are multiple regulatory mechanisms, both genomic and postgenomic that control its abundance on neurons. So it is difficult to imagine that there is not underlying variation in expression levels that natural selection could use to further optimize its expression.

    17. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      It HAS happened, but those affected (rats included) simply can't get laid to propagate the phenomenon...

      I expect that you were joking, but I think that it is a serious possibility. Transgenic animals are bred in captivity. I wonder what their mating success would be in the wild.

    18. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by webdog314 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage. Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired?

      Yeah, now they need glasses and can't seem to get a date.

    19. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Basically, a rat only has to be as smart as necessary to reproduce. Perhaps there is no advantage to a longer memory, remembering longer simply doesn't get you more tail.

      However, you need to survive to reproduce. Rats use their intelligence to get access to, and remember the location of, food sources. So it seems unlikely that a rat that was smarter, with no downside, would not have a selective advantage when food is scarce.

    20. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by cekander · · Score: 1

      I think the reason has more to do with necessity. It simply isn't all that helpful, living the rife of a rat, to remember more. Could they adapt their life-style to take advantage of an enhanced memory? Perhaps, but that's not how evolution works.

      For humans, I think it's a little more interesting, but suffice to say we might just be a more egalitarian society if we didn't rely on memory to teach us right from wrong.

    21. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!*

    22. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by DaFallus · · Score: 1

      Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened? Presumably, there is a selective advantage to improved learning and memory. Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage. Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired?

      Maybe the smarter rats are more curious and end up as cat food.

      --
      No one cares what your captcha was

      Houston TX, USA
    23. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    24. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective
      > advantage.

      Higher energy requirements would be a good bet.

      This would solve overweight problems then aswell - smarter and more goodlooking!

    25. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by ortholattice · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As you suggest, there are two possibilities why this advantage hasn't occurred naturally:

      1. It adds no selective advantage;

      2. The advantage is outweighed by the costs.

      There is a third possibility, namely that the set of mutations necessary to give rise to this advantage are too improbable to occur (or perhaps even fundamentally impossible).

      Maybe there is a 4th possibility. Everyone seems to be focusing on "survivability", but once that is overcome, reproduction becomes important. Look at the ostentatious displays of some birds that have nothing to do with survivability or might even be detrimental to it. Maybe a highly intelligent rat simply becomes less interested in sex, or is less able to attract females who might prefer the dumb macho rats. I don't know if a comparison to humans has any validity, but the most intelligent of our species are not necessarily the ones reproducing the most (or in some cases at all). This is in spite of the fact that we are intelligent enough to understand logically what is necessary to propagate our genes. In terms of the long-term evolution of humans, intelligence doesn't seem to be one of the characteristics we are selecting for, for better or worse.

    26. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      Or (IMHO) the most probable presumption is that rats are not at the peak of their evolution and this particular trait just hasn't occurred yet or would not be a naturally occurring mutation.

      Your presumption that "if they haven't evolved to do this yet then there must be some disadvantage" is inherently false.

      To extrapolate further, using your presumption, "if rats were humans they'd have an evolutionary advantage, why aren't rats humans". I would imagine one could list a million "simple mutations", each giving an advantage, that would lead to a rat having all of the genetic advantages of humans. Why haven't each of these in the chain occurred?

      Evolution is not necessarily really even about selective advantage or survival of the fittest. It's about who reproduces the most (which is not necessarily the fittest or most advantaged). In fact, evolution only seems to really accelerate in extreme conditions.

      Anyways, I'm going on too far, but I reject your presumption that a genetic advantage must necessarily have a disadvantage if it isn't naturally occurring.

    27. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Finite intelligence barrier, once you get smart enough you realize life is suffering and give up.

      Possible issues explained: No Aliens, Neandrathals were smarter than modern man and coming soon suicidal robots!

      Improved memory flies directly in the face of the human ability for self deception. I like comparing it to the religious thought that we're created in "God's" image, with a left brain and right brain in constant opposition? Designed to be out of control, cool.

    28. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      I reference Beauraucracy, imagine if you could remember 21 things instead of 7 (that's the average correct?) and then the government was like "constantly enforce these extra rules we've got for you memory man! Now forgetting is no longer an excuse."

      Not that I'm saying that society eagerly fills the void to be as complex as possible.

    29. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      I don't know about you, but I think there is some value to having the ability to forget. Once I've forgiven someone for something, I want my mind to slowly lose that information because it is no longer relevant. If I remembered everything I ever experienced, I think I'd go insane and become overly depressed as the memories of small infractions mounted (we all forget the little things people do every day that annoy us, or if we don't we resent others for their actions... this could be amplified with perfect memory, no?).

      Just shooting the breeze here, but perhaps this has been selectively weeded out because those with perfect memory are miserable, or those with perfect memory annoy the crap out of others, and early man killed off the annoying members of society... just a thought.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    30. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      "Nevertheless, it raises an interesting question: if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened?"

      Looking back at great swaths of my own life, and imagining the ability to remember them much, much better, the reason becomes apparent: suicide?

      --
      -Styopa
    31. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Selection pressure works in the negative. Even if it adds a benefit, the individual critters without it would have to fail to breed. As long as the current is sufficient, we'll get more of the current.

    32. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suggest looking at Red States and Blue states. Nuff said.

    33. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Or (IMHO) the most probable presumption is that rats are not at the peak of their evolution and this particular trait just hasn't occurred yet or would not be a naturally occurring mutation.

      Except that overexpression mutations tend to be common. There are just so many ways in which an existing protein can be upregulated: Increased transcription, increased translation, increased membrane insertion, decreased degradation, changes in cellular feedback regulation, etc., etc. So it is highly implausible to suppose that there is no existing genetic variation in levels of NR2B for selection to act upon. Given the short generation span of rodents, they should be pretty close to the local optimum of expression for all existing proteins.

    34. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Selection pressure works in the negative. Even if it adds a benefit, the individual critters without it would have to fail to breed. As long as the current is sufficient, we'll get more of the current.

      This is a misconception. Nobody necessarily has to fail to breed. All that is required for a mutation to increase in the population is for animals with a mutation to have more offspring, or more that survive to breed, than the average.

    35. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      From the point of view of natural selection, having less children is a downside.

    36. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      Given the short generation span of rodents, they should be pretty close to the local optimum of expression for all existing proteins.

      If that presumption is correct and it does occur naturally then maybe this just isn't an optimal mutation for their locality. Doesn't necessarily have a downside, but the upside is statistically negligible in terms of reproduction and survivability.

    37. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Except that it also seems rather implausible that there would be no selective advantage to remembering better than the other rats how to get to the food, unless there is some other negative.

    38. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by relguj9 · · Score: 1

      It seems very plausible to me. Rats have abundant sources of food in the environments they thrive in (under cities, etc.). Better memory provides no advantage to food gathering as they are already more than saturated. So whether they can remember 10, 20 or 50 x as much it doesn't matter, they'll still find more food than they need to survive.

      Similarly, it would have no advantage to reproduction.

      The only feasible advantage I can think of is to avoid predators. But as you said, they reproduce so quickly that having a longer memory may very well have no significant statistical impact on their ability to reach breeding age and/or survive any longer than other rats to breed more.

    39. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by The+Dancing+Panda · · Score: 1

      You act like the third possibility is far-fetched. I'd say that's what happens more often than not. We're not in the best of all possible worlds, not every genetic mutation that provides a survival advantage necessarily thrives.

      Maybe the rats that have had this mutation were also nerd rats that couldn't get laid. It happens.

    40. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if intelligence can be increased by something so simple as an increase in the expression of a single NMDA receptor subunit, why hasn't it already happened?

      It has, or you wouldn't be here :-)

    41. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      It's a possibility, but I don't think so. The receptors don't use a lot of energy. The baseline cost of maintaining the neurons won't change. So the main incremental cost will be the pump costs for repolarizing after action potentials. But it doesn't seem likely that overall firing is massively increased, or they'd probably be seizing.

      When I read this post the voice in my head was that of Geordi La Forge.

    42. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or... as allready mentioned, that will make them nerd rats and thus unnattracttive to females

    43. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      True. But you don't get your electricity from digging through your neighbor's garbage.

      (I'm guessing.)

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    44. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      the most intelligent of our species are not necessarily the ones reproducing the most (or in some cases at all).

      That may be true to some extent, but keep in mind that it's entirely too easy to use perceived intelligence as a proxy for economic status. (Particularly in that, if you're the kind of person who worries about this, you've already identified your background pretty well, which is going to bias your judgments of others' intelligence levels.) Anyway, it is absolutely a universal human truth that (with rare exceptions, like emperors with harems or w/e) higher socioeconomic status correlates with lowered reproduction rates. People with the security to raise one or two children and expect them to survive, will plan their families and limit childbirth.

      There are plenty of smart people having babies; I wouldn't worry about intelligence being selected out of our population. At least, no more than has already been done by the advent of sedentary farming lifestyles as opposed to hunter-gatherer lifestyles.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    45. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Are there other behaviors for which the rat is impaired?

      Giving two thumbs up on a job well done.

    46. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are making the mistake of assuming that evolution always gives us desirable traits. Evolution is really not intelligent. It's just making random code changes, for our species we get a coherent (expressible) mutation about once in every 8 generations.

      Evolution is only about 1 thing, breeding. If an individual has more babies than another individual then his genes are selected for.

      Three possibilities that I can come up with:

      1. Random mutations haven't yet given our species overproduction of this receptor protein. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that they got over-expression by repeating the gene sequence. Tandem duplications usually happen in specific places in the genome where the DNA replication enzymes get "stuck" when replicating the parent strand, causing repeats.

      2. Over-expression of this protein doesn't give any kind of fitness (for reproduction) advantage. (Although I always thought that the guy who remembered girls names was more likely to get laid...)

      3. There is an upper limit on intelligence for breeding. I've known plenty of smart guys and gals that felt like reproduction was a waste of their time, so perhaps our breeding process selects against high IQ's.

    47. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      Presumably, there is a selective advantage to improved learning and memory. Presumably, there is some kind of downside that balances that selective advantage.

      The downside is that now the Rats crave human brains...

      Hey, I TOLD Ilsensine that the cranium rats were enough, but it said "Hey! Who's the god-brain here?!" Something about not enough surface dweller brains being eaten to offset how much they were breeding. Afraid they were going to start digging downward in some crazy subterranean condo fad.

      And then I said "Okay, but outsourcing the work to humans doesn't seem like a good idea." and it said with the recession it had to cut some corners, and the human cattle work cheap.

      Really, I've been against it the whole way, but it's hard to argue with, like, a level six zillion psionicist. Become a thrall, see the world, they said. A gyp, if you ask me. All I've seen are the insides of damp, dark rooms. And the insides of brains, less dark but more damp.

    48. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by tgibbs · · Score: 1

      Random mutations haven't yet given our species overproduction of this receptor protein. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that they got over-expression by repeating the gene sequence. Tandem duplications usually happen in specific places in the genome where the DNA replication enzymes get "stuck" when replicating the parent strand, causing repeats.

      This is the most convenient way to do it for experimental purposes, but it is far from the only way that the level of a protein can be increased. This can happen by increased activity of the promoter; increased levels, binding, or phosphorylation of transcription factors; increased translation; decreased inhibition by small RNAs; increased trafficking to the surface; decreased degradation; decreased activity of regulatory factors that mediate exocytosis, etc., etc. So it really is not very plausible that there is zero genetic variation in the population above the average expression level of the protein.

      Over-expression of this protein doesn't give any kind of fitness

      However, it is hard to imagine that a rodent wouldn't reap a Darwinian benefit (i.e. increased reproduction or survival of offspring) from being better able to remember the location of food, possible hazards, etc. Unless, of course, the behavioral tests of intelligence that are used in the laboratory do not accurately reflect the intellectual demands of life in the wild.

      There is an upper limit on intelligence for breeding. I've known plenty of smart guys and gals that felt like reproduction was a waste of their time, so perhaps our breeding process selects against high IQ's.

      This also seems like a very plausible hypothesis, but kind of vague. I was wondering what particular behavioral traits might be altered to produce a decrement in reproductive success sufficient to balance the likely advantage of better learning and memory.

    49. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Planx_Constant · · Score: 1

      You would make a good point if it weren't for the fact that people keep getting smarter.

      --
      Heisenberg might have been here.
    50. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      I think that experiment was part of a sequence that also showed the gene affected seizures, so maybe that particular boost had dangerous side effects.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    51. Re:We already knew it worked for mice by bar-agent · · Score: 1

      My guess is they'd need more sleep or else suffer confusion and indecision.

      --
      i'd hit it so hard, if you pulled me out you'd be the king of britain [bash.org]
  19. repeat story by nimbius · · Score: 2, Funny

    this has already been done at HLM Laboratories in sonoma, ca

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  20. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 0

    How about forgetting the boring, pointless, stupid "Oh-my-God-I-can-use-a-meme!" references and contribute something intelligent. Or fuck off back to your imageboard.

    No...

  21. Actually I wonder what the downside is by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    After all, if more memory were that simple, surely evolution would have changed that gene by itself. If it were a tradeoff, that would be much more logical.

    So what did these rats lose ? Do they have gaps in long term memory ?

    I'd watch out for the "no free lunch" idea holding true here too.

    1. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by maxwell+demon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe the trade-off is that their brain simply needs more energy, which isn't great when food availability is the main factor limiting reproduction. Or maybe, the better memory simply doesn't help the rats too much in their natural habitat. After all, natural selection doesn't favour long memories, it favours large effective reproduction rates. If long memory doesn't lead to higher effective reproduction rates, it won't be improved by natural selection.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the trade-off is that their brain simply needs more energy, which isn't great when food availability is the main fact

      Let's hope so. I doubt it though : it could be brain cooling if it's energy related. Not one of the strong points of mammals. After all, brain cooling is the reason we have a head in the first place.

    3. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've noticed that I have a very good semantic memory (memory of concepts), but a comparatively poor episodic memory (memory of events). I tend to remember patterns but not specific examples of those patterns.

      I've wondered if there's some sort of trade off between the two. Instead of memory performance and other aspects of intelligence being a matter of capacity (where more is strictly better), it could be more of a matter of allocation of capacity (where there may be trade offs).

    4. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

      I vaguely remember reading accounts written by people with excellent memories and they found it a pain in the ass, remembering way too much. I got the impression that evolution had picked a decent general purpose default setting for how much we remember.

    5. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There may very well be a tradeoff but remember evolution doesn't work with a game plan in mind... but its also likely that a mutation allowing for the over-expression NR2B hasn't occurred due to chance alone.

    6. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by Trent+Hawkins · · Score: 5, Funny

      After all, if more memory were that simple, surely evolution would have changed that gene by itself. If it were a tradeoff, that would be much more logical. So what did these rats lose ? Do they have gaps in long term memory ? I'd watch out for the "no free lunch" idea holding true here too.

      Evolution decided that when creature has to eating nothing but rotting crap all it's life, it's best that the creature not be able to ponder on the matter.

    7. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by Zerth · · Score: 1

      A good memory makes for a good alcoholic.

    8. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The downside is that this poor rat will become a social outcast among his peers. He will move into this parents nest in the lab's basement and become a regular poster on /.

    9. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Aye. Evolution doesn't produce perfect. It produces good enough.

    10. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by kitezh · · Score: 0, Troll

      Aye. Microsoft doesn't produce perfect. It produces good enough.

      Fixed that for you.

    11. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by davidbofinger · · Score: 1

      Aye. Evolution doesn't produce perfect. It produces good enough.

      There's some subtlety here. I suspect PitaBred is saying that evolution produces "good enough" in one trait but doesn't push for perfection in that trait at the expense of other traits. Which is true.

      In whole-of-organism terms, though, PitaBred's statement is almost exactly untrue. Evolution does produce locally "perfect", in the sense that if it finds itself on the slope of a hill it will climb that hill to the top. On the other hand evolution doesn't produce "good enough": if there's no continuously rising path to survival it will go extinct rather than follow an initially downward one.

      Assuming longer memory is an advantage someone does need to explain why rats don't have it.

    12. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by amplt1337 · · Score: 1

      natural selection doesn't favour long memories, it favours large effective reproduction rates.

      Rats CERTAINLY have that part down. They're very, er, efficient reproducers, to the point where the female rat's first-response disaster strategy (where "disaster" includes "I heard a loud noise" or "my food tastes like garlic today") is "Well, eat the young, we'll have more later."

      There's an interesting tidbit (I think I came across it in The Selfish Gene) that suggests that you can determine a species' reproductive-evolutionary strategy according to males' testicular size proportional to the rest of their bodies. Species that favor lots of reproduction, don't put much effort into 'em, fire-and-forget, tend to have substantially less paternal involvement in care, which means less pair bonding between mothers and fathers, which in turn means more promiscuous mating and (for the males) a race between who's got the most & the fastest sperm. So, you want bigger balls if your lady friend is sleeping around.

      Long story short, check out a rat's nads sometime. They're GINORMOUS.

      --
      Freedom isn't free; its price is the well-being of others.
    13. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by darthdavid · · Score: 1

      Evolution is random. Maybe this mutation just never occurred in the wild, or it did but the animals with it all unluckily died off or maybe it has happened but it didn't/hasn't yet spread to the whole population, after all: how would we know that a wild rat's memory was better than that of it's peers?

    14. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      One thing that people often miss about evolution is the time required. Even in a small population it takes a very long time for a new trait to become ubiquitous. If one rat has this mutation and it's dominant, then half if its children will have it. If it's recessive then a quarter will have it and a quarter will carry it (pass it to their children, but not benefit from it). A trait like this doesn't guarantee that the rat will procreate, but it might make it more likely. On average, maybe a rat which has this trait will have 3 children while one without will have 2.

      Now, imagine that you start with a population of only ten rats. One has the mutation, the rest don't. In the next generation you will have approximately 18 rats without the mutation and 3 with. You've gone from 10% to 14% in one generation. That's only the population in the single pack, however. The worldwide population with the mutation has gone from some tiny fraction of a percent to some almost immeasurably larger tiny fraction of a percent.

      It might take ten or twenty generations for that entire pack to carry the mutation, possibly more. That's a couple of decades. For the entire rat population of, say, the UK to carry the mutation would take hundreds, if not thousands, of years. And that's assuming that it has no disadvantages associated with it. If every single rat with it is 50% more likely to reproduce than one without it, which is a far bigger advantage than almost any evolutionary step has actually produced. In reality, a single gene mutation is likely to give no more than a 5% reproductive advantage.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    15. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have exactly this same "ability" to remember patterns vs facts, which most people around me call a "problem".

      An interesting manifestation of this is: I read a LOT of fiction and non-fiction of all genres. But the moment I put down a book, I dont remember a single thing about its plot, character, timeline, date of publication ... nothing. All I remember is a visceral summary of felt emotions, and overall life patterns as delineated in the book. Needless to say, because I cant authoritatively quote quotidian facts from fashionable authors in a baritone voice, this makes me very inept at picking up humanities chicks.

      But I also write my own fiction and when people read it, they'll say, hey this has the same feel as Pamuk or Garcia-Marquez or Asimov etc, even tho my plotline will be totally different from that of the author they compare it to. Thats when my confidence is restored and I venture out into chatting up said humanities chicks.

      One thing I remember reading (sorry I dont have the reference handy) is that some brain states consume lower energy than others, so Im speculating that pattern memory requires less energy than episodic, and so depending on individuals' neuronal metabolism patterns, they're predisposed to episodic or factual/event memory.

    16. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Locally perfect still isn't perfect. And that is my point. It's good enough to match the local needs, but it isn't any better than that, even if it could be. And that is where people get tripped up in my experience.

    17. Re:Actually I wonder what the downside is by kimb · · Score: 1

      Good question. A thing that is well known in neurophysiology and neuropsychology is that forgetting is (almost) as important as learning (and remembering). Optimal forgetting is behaviorally beneficial (without forgetting, and thus making room for new associations you would soon be stuck with very rigid behavioral patterns). It is thought that one of the main functions of sleep is to erase some of associations made through the day. There is a saying in neurophysiology/psychology: the problem is not how to remember and learn but how to forget.

      Obviously, the only way to know for sure what effect these functionally local enhancements might have globally is to have good long term studies, not just on organisms like mice but on humans.

  22. Hmmmm . . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Biological overclocking. How long before they try nitrogen cooling?

    1. Re:Hmmmm . . . . by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      Biological overclocking. How long before they try nitrogen cooling?

      Uhmmm, Nitrogen is the largest single constituent of the Earth's atmosphere (78.082% by volume, 75.3% by weight) so they already have.

    2. Re:Hmmmm . . . . by Abstrackt · · Score: 1

      Biological overclocking. How long before they try nitrogen cooling?

      In other news, "Ratsicles" will soon be available in your grocer's freezer.

      --
      They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance. - Terry Pratchett
  23. American Bar Association Sees Job Threat by Capablanca · · Score: 0

    is it true the smart rats escaped and made a beeline to 85 Broad St, NY, NY?

  24. How the Rat Wars began by HangingChad · · Score: 1

    At 2:14 am on August 29th, NR2B+ A23, aka "Pinky", became self-aware. After a brief bout of tail chasing, coupled with a sudden realization, "Holy crap, I'm a f'ing rat." Pinky began to fear being shut down by his creators.

    And so it began....

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    1. Re:How the Rat Wars began by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1
      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
  25. at what cost? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Due to his enhanced memory, the rat could not push her out of his mind. The memories refused to fade with time. The slightest sight or scent would cause him not just to remember his intense passion and total devotion, but also to relive it, as if she were still there with him. Moments later, as reality returned, he inevitably re-experienced that October afternoon when she left. The despair cut to the bottom of his soul in a way far more intense than the original break-up had been, as shock had initially numbed his pain. No more. His perfect memory of perfect happiness lifted him up so high, the inevitable fall came from an unimaginable height, and terminal velocity does not apply to emotions.

    After enduring this torture for what seemed an eternity, he finally gave in, and resolutely marched toward the wire-framed cheese, her angelic body still vivid in his mind...

    --
    A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    1. Re:at what cost? by ktappe · · Score: 1

      If ever a post needed modding up, this would be it.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry. Once science comes up with a cure for sex, your rat will be able to move on to something else.

    3. Re:at what cost? by wurp · · Score: 1

      Bravo!

      Well done, sir.

    4. Re:at what cost? by electricprof · · Score: 1

      I need a cigarette.

    5. Re:at what cost? by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      That was the best Slashdot comment I have ever read.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    6. Re:at what cost? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      With their heightened intelligence, wouldn't the rats soon develop a method for brewing alcohol, thus fixing this problem just like humans do?

    7. Re:at what cost? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Sounds a little autobiographical. Indeed, memories can be a curse. But don't worry, there is someone who can help you. Maybe you would be interested in making an appointment with Lacuna, Inc?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:at what cost? by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      there is someone who can help you

      Ohhh, did he just spend 12 years in an oak barrel? Because I like him!

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    9. Re:at what cost? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      Simply beautiful.

  26. TL;DR by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We need like... 4 page reviews, maximum.

  27. Re:I for one by istartedi · · Score: 1

    welcome our new Rat Bastard overlords!

    New?

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  28. Re:I for one by bluesatin · · Score: 1

    You must be new here.

  29. Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    About eight years ago I read about a line of experiments that measurably increased rodents' performance in a set of memory and learning tasks. I believe the genetic change involved the NMDA receptor, but a quick search doesn't turn up an obvious link to that.

    There was a report this September that gene therapy had been used to grant "full" color vision to colorblind monkeys, following on an earlier experiment that did the same thing to rodents. That is, the rodents were given three-color vision where they normally have two color receptor types. (Would that make them transrodents?) Apparently, the brain automatically adapts to having a new receptor type installed in the retina! And the same technique could be used on humans to grant us a fourth receptor type, maybe a UV receptor gotten from parrots or something. I'd volunteer to have this done to one eye. (The first comment on this article presents a dissenting view that just because the monkeys were able to distinguish colors in greater detail than before, that shouldn't be taken as proof that they "have full color vision". All the more reason to try it in a human!)

    The rodents could be in combination with cyborg cats though, as seen in this 1995 report of recognizable images read directly from a cat's visual cortex.

    --
    Revive the Constitution.
    1. Re:Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      I'd personally be much more interested in infrared receptors...

      I hear cotton is nearly transparent in the infrared range.

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
    2. Re:Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by AshtangiMan · · Score: 1

      Unless it's on fire.

    3. Re:Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Drat, that's going to rule out like 0.0001% of the hot women I wanted to spy on.

    4. Re:Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by j_cavera · · Score: 1

      Mantis shrimp eyes would be f-ing cool!

      --
      #include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
    5. Re:Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it'd be more useful. But isn't the energy level involved low enough that IR requires special structures in snakes? I'm guessing it can't easily be sensed just by tweaking normal color receptors. Is there an animal known to have a "normal" IR receptor? With UV, you could at least see some details in nature that aren't normally visible to humans. For instance, some flowers have patterns on them in UV.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    6. Re:Other Rodent Upgrade Experiments by clone53421 · · Score: 1

      Is there an animal known to have a "normal" IR receptor?

      A quick Google search revealed that goldfish can see both infrared and UV light.

      With UV, you could at least see some details in nature that aren't normally visible to humans. For instance, some flowers have patterns on them in UV.

      With IR, you could see some details in nature that people have tried to cover up with cotton...

      --
      Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
  30. Larger L2 by jbeaupre · · Score: 1

    Larger L2 cache.

    I say that somewhat jokingly, but picked L2 as an imperfect analogy. RAM or L3 could also work. But basically, it appears these rats can remember a larger short term list. Not the immediate data (wall in front of me / L1), not all data (everything learned to date / RAM), but a working set of reference data (maze directions / L2)

    Again, this is just my half joking analogy. Please feel to modify or disregard.

    --
    The world is made by those who show up for the job.
  31. Doom doom doom! by sammysheep · · Score: 1

    "The rats have gotten smarter...even problem solving intelligence...you know when that one looks at you, she's figuring things out..."

    "Scientists were so concerned with whether or not they could make the perfect rat, they never stopped to ask if they should!"


    - (Paraphrases a la J.P.)

  32. Re: Human testing by Tristanic · · Score: 1

    ...damn, forgot what I was going to say.

  33. Going the wrong way around by Captain+Spam · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight: Scientists gave up on building a better mouse trap, for which the world have beaten a path to their doors, and instead they went the indirect route of building a better rat to chew a path through the world's doors?

    --
    Demanding constant attention will only lead to attention.
    1. Re:Going the wrong way around by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: Scientists gave up on building a better mouse trap, for which the world have beaten a path to their doors, and instead they went the indirect route of building a better rat to chew a path through the world's doors?

      A mousetrap has to be manufactured, never improves once built, needs maintenance and placement. Rats have none of these weaknesses; self-repairing, self-replicating, self-feeding, and adaptable.

      So apparently the scientists have not only decided to welcome their new rodent overlords, they've decided to create them!

  34. Corrected link by tgibbs · · Score: 1
  35. Uh, can we please make sure these don't escape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, having genetically modified plants spread through the world is one thing.

    Having basically every animal around us given near chimpansee-like intelligence is an altogether different one.

    Rats can, rarely and under extreme circumstances, eat a lot of different stuff. Including babies. (no kidding: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,255328,00.html). I would much rather have a stupid rat that starves to death, than an intelligent rat that goes to lengths to get access to stuff to eat. The same for birds and pretty much any other animal. "Intelligent cats" would probably make a great pet idea - but no so great if they start forming cat gangs to ambush and kill dogs.

    1. Re:Uh, can we please make sure these don't escape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [...] but no so great if they start forming cat gangs to ambush and kill dogs.

      You watch way too many cartoon shows.

    2. Re:Uh, can we please make sure these don't escape? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it would not be the rational course of action how?

      Consider any animal around us. They have basic needs, which they seek fulfilled - food, safety, sex, a nest or home. Much like humans. At the moment, they seek to fulfil these needs in very instinctive ways. Given a somewhat higher intelligence, it's beyond doubt that they would still seek to fulfil these basic needs, you just can't really say how. Removing a rat infestation from a city is already extremely difficult. As intelligence is a trait with a clear benefit but not really a substantial cost we can observe, it's just like taking any weed (like the Kudzu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu) engineered to be five times as resistant and releasing it in the wild for fun. Do you volunteer as a rat exterminator?

      This kind of research should only happen on islands, or very controlled environments.

  36. We need this like a hole in the head... by tjstork · · Score: 1

    Man, that's all we need, to succumb to a plague of genetically engineered rats.

    --
    This is my sig.
  37. Re:I for one by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 3, Funny

    You might want to see a doctor if hearing a particular song causes you to lose balance. I'm not saying tumor or anything, but you might want to check it out.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  38. Re:I for one by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

    You mean, like "In soviet Russia, our new Rat Bastard overlords welcome YOU"? :-) Of course, in Korea, only old people forget those references. Maybe they got Alzheimer ...

    Well, imagine a Beowulf cluster of memory-improved rats. Given how fast rats reproduce, this would give an exponential speedup of your calculation. However, do those rats run Linux? Maybe we would need memory-enhanced penguins instead. But those don't breed as fast ...

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  39. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    welcome our new Rat Bastard overlords!

    New?

    Well, bribing these Rat Bastards with cheese is much cheaper than bribing our old masters with large campaign contributions, blackjack and of coarse the strippers.

  40. Tomorrow the Rat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time to call for Doomwatch

    http://www.doomwatch.org/season1tomorrowtheratreview.html

  41. Death Notice by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

    We regret to inform the /. community that the above user was found dead in an alley this afternoon, apparently a victim to an attack by R.o.U.S.es.

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  42. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    However, do those rats run Linux? Maybe we would need memory-enhanced penguins instead. But those don't breed as fast ...

    You must be doing something wrong...
    You are trying to bread the penguins with OTHER penguins right?

  43. Re:I for one by Xaedalus · · Score: 1

    Actually, I applaud you for using your user name!

    --
    Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
  44. I'll say it now... by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1

    Continued progress along these lines won't end well for us.
    Did we learn nothing from Deep Blue Sea? (Or this: IntelliMouse?)
    I, for one, welcome <you know the rest...>

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  45. Re:I for one by tom17 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I find it easier to bread things using, err, bread.

  46. Uplift series by David Brin by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 1

    Good stuff.

  47. I for one ... by nevermore94 · · Score: 1

    can't remember how this meme should go.

    --
    Nevermore.
    1. Re:I for one ... by Daetrin · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, whatever it is, the genetically engineered super-intelligent rats can remember it for you wholesale, so you should probably welcome them with open arms and offer them your thanks. (And cheese.)

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  48. Just what the word needs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thats just what the word needs, a smarter rat. YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG!

  49. Re:I for one by conspirator57 · · Score: 1

    on second thought, forget the campaign contributions... and the blackjack.

    --
    "If still these truths be held to be
    Self evident."
    -Edna St. Vincent Millay
  50. Oblig Dr. E - sorry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, I have one simple request. And that is to have rats with frickin' heat sinks attached to their heads!

  51. Just what we need by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    Just what we need, smarter rats. Now I'll just have to build a better mousetrap.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  52. That's funny by lymond01 · · Score: 1

    One of my scientist friends was on this team. We'd always go to the renaissance faires together -- she was always big into the art booths, always liked those renaissance period painters. Her work was on turtles though...

  53. ... the dark side ... sort of by electricprof · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, attempts at breeding smarter rats has lead to an overpopulation of overpaid finance executives. Meanwhile, current research on engineering an ethical politician has hit a brick wall ...

  54. Re:I for one by Gilmoure · · Score: 3, Funny

    Coarse strippers are rough!

    --
    I drank what? -- Socrates
  55. Obligatory by LuxMaker · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome our new rat overlords.

    --
    I regret that I only have one mod point to give per post.
  56. Re:I for one by pwfffff · · Score: 4, Funny

    OMG! I can't believe I was actually on the internet when the FIRST EVER expression of displeasure towards an overused meme was posted! So fresh, so original, so... intelligent! You truly are a hero of the internet!!!

    Thanks for standing up for us, the little guys, who see memes posted day after day but are unable to do anything about it. You, sir, have surely stopped, once and for all, this abuse of popular culture.

  57. What ya gona do tonight? by Forge · · Score: 4, Funny



    What ya gona do tonight?

    Same thing we do every night.

    try to take over the world.!!!

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
  58. got to be a joke about... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    Somewhere a joke about the Stainless Steel Rat is waiting to appear, but I can't find it. Clearly I need some of that memory enhancement.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  59. False alarm folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They forgot to take into account the lead scientist had alzheimers and hence the memory span of a goldfish.

  60. James Herbert by slashmojo · · Score: 1

    No good can come of this..

    "For millions of years man and rats had been natural enemies. But now for the first time - suddenly, shockingly, horribly - the balance of power had shifted."
    http://www.james-herbert.co.uk/rats.htm

    1. Re:James Herbert by Hybrid-brain · · Score: 0

      Hey as long as we don't get gene mutated rat creatures with awesome powers, we should be good. Think about it, a rat that can easily turn your rat trap into a hover craft, a rat that can control weather, a rat that is going crazy because she's got the powers of the universe floating around in her sub-conscious, a rat that shoots beams out of his eyes.

      --
      Five words describe me on a normal day. two words describe me the rest of the time. can you guess?
  61. What they actually did achieve was by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    a rat with a higher capacity blatter and a weener that would spread nano drops of urine in arrow shaped fashion so that the rat could finds its way through the maze more efficiently...

    next step will be a rat that can mark dead ends with crosses after having found out again...

  62. Re:I for one by Moderatbastard · · Score: 0

    Thank you, my loyal subject.

    --
    1/3 of jokes get modded OT. If you get the joke, mod 1 in 3 insightful/interesting/underrated to restore karma balance.
  63. We'll make great pets... by phly1x · · Score: 0

    ...and maybe they will remember where I parked my car.

  64. So by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    So instead of deserting sinking ships, they'll be able to evaluate a vessel's seaworthiness before choosing whether to board?

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  65. Don't let them do it! by WSOGMM · · Score: 1
    The mice wanted to dissect our brains, the dolphins tried their best to warn us of impending doom, but the rats... ah yes, the rats.

    ... in case my dull joke was over a few of you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hitchhiker's_Guide_to_the_Galaxy

  66. Unfortunately... by TheSync · · Score: 1

    Unfortunately, the rat began hanging out on the Internet, posting on Slashdot, reading manga, got fat, started smelling bad, never got to mate, and its genes died out.

  67. Forget SkyNet by PPH · · Score: 1

    Now we've got RatNet!

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  68. Or maybe research rats are dumb by tgibbs · · Score: 1

    Another possibility is that rats and mice in the wild already have this, but that research animals, which have been through many generations of selection for docility and manageability, under-express NR2B.

  69. Hmmm...entirely different first thought.... by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    That's weird. I was sure this was another article about Wall Street and derivatives dealers.

  70. Rote memorization is NOT intelligence! by macraig · · Score: 1

    Although I admit the difference at-a-glance is often very hard to discern, and often requires intelligence on the part of the viewer to recognize it... takes one to know one? Think about how many so-called IT experts you probably know who seem like true experts until you force them to step outside the box of everything they've memorized, whereupon they resort to either making shit up, buck-passing, or hand-wringing. Any monkey can memorize shit... it requires intelligence to be able to interpolate and extrapolate beyond that. Far more people have the memory without the requisite intelligence. (There's also people who have the requisite intelligence without the memory, but that's a disorder for another discussion.)

  71. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    I find it easier to bread things using, err, bread.

    Slashdot - NEWS FOR NERDS. STUFF THAT MATERS. NO SPELLING MISTAKES ALLOWED!

    **yes filter bot I am yelling at you**

  72. Cats can't catch rats by Colin+Smith · · Score: 1

    They can when they are out on open ground, but rats spend most of their time underground, so cats are not very good at controlling rat populations. If they could, our cities wouldn't be getting overrun by rats.

    If you want to control mice, rat populations, try the weasel family instead; Polecats, weasels, stoats/ermines, ferrets.

     

    --
    Deleted
  73. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Thanks for standing up for us, the little guys, who see memes posted day after day but are unable to do anything about it. You, sir, have surely stopped, once and for all, this abuse of popular culture.

    I for one, welcome our new meme overlords!

  74. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    Coarse strippers are rough!

    Yes my spelling function currently has a few memory leaks but I am hoping that the service pack takes care of that...

  75. Uplift by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good choice in candidate species for uplift there scientists...(NOT)

  76. Re:I for one by ae1294 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, I applaud you for using your user name!

    Why? What could possibly go wrong?

    If my karma ever drops below Excellent I will simply post a few messages saying how great the PS3 is or maybe a few about how the iPhone is so much better than any other phone, or I could just discuss how horrible Micro$oft and the Government are.

  77. TAAAAGGGG!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How could you miss this opportunity:

    tag: pinkyandthebrain

    For Gods' Sake!!!

  78. Are we sure? by TheCrig · · Score: 1

    Are we sure it's NR2B? I.e., NR2B or NR-not-2B. That is the question.

    --
    -- Jim Crigler In 1937, I began, like Lazarus, the impossible return. -- Whittaker Chambers
    1. Re:Are we sure? by electricprof · · Score: 1

      Ouch!

  79. Just what we need by dmmiller2k · · Score: 1

    Just what NYC needs: Smarter Rats

    --

    "No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin

  80. You're assuming a lot of things... by Archfeld · · Score: 1

    #1 - He is intelligent and not a SlashBot,
    #2 - Has anything of value to contribute,
    #3 - He is even attempting to contribute,

    and then this is slashdot, it is 'cool' to spout unsubstantiated crap and troll.

    SlashDot getting slower and more bloated by the release.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:You're assuming a lot of things... by ae1294 · · Score: 1

      #1 - He is intelligent and not a SlashBot,
      #2 - Has anything of value to contribute,
      #3 - He is even attempting to contribute,
      and then this is slashdot, it is 'cool' to spout unsubstantiated crap and troll.

      Thank you for clearing up all of the confusion.

      Hey... By-the-way friend would you be interested in buying some cheap V1agra?

  81. New memory technology... by aardwolf64 · · Score: 1

    New memory technology, we dub thee Mouse Inline Memory Module (MIMM).

  82. Perhaps the downside IS a longer memory by tobiah · · Score: 1

    Re-solving a problem rather than applying the stored solution might have survival advantages. While other species might store memories longer, there are probably other mechanisms, or perhaps just environmental context, that prevents longer memories from becoming a problem.

    --
    "The ability to delude yourself may be an important survival tool" - Jane Wagner -
  83. Park Ranger Smith by Hermaniac · · Score: 1

    Somebody, please, tell me this tech can be translated to larger/higher mammals, so that we can create a smarter than the average bear!

  84. Rat J. Mnemonic by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    re Johny Mnemonic: A few more years of tests and nobody would use a human to traffic data when one could use a perfectly scalable rat solution.

  85. smart rats. by Nekomusume · · Score: 1

    Mrs Frisby gives her whole-hearted aproval to this endeavor.

  86. Evil Overlord Rules... by IonOtter · · Score: 1

    #28: My pet monster will be kept in a secure cage from which it cannot escape and into which I could not accidentally stumble.

    Although, #48 works just as well...

    #48 I will treat any beast which I control through magic or technology with respect and kindness. Thus if the control is ever broken, it will not immediately come after me for revenge.

    --
    [End Of Line]
  87. Re:I for one by buswolley · · Score: 1

    I've seen this kind of response so many times before ...

    --

    A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

  88. Re:I am with you always by ae1294 · · Score: 1

    I've seen this kind of response so many times before ...

    Words can be very hurtful and it's horrible that anyone would write such harsh and hateful things when all I was trying to do was brighten up someones day (namely mine). What is slashdot coming to when the use of first post memes is forbidden? Clearly this article about making 'Rat Bastards' smarter should, by defecation, meet the requirements for my overlords comment...

    Please think of the children next time...

  89. re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    640kb should be enough for any rat

  90. "today's smartest rats"? by Pictish+Prince · · Score: 1

    I thought they worked in government

    --
    Only his tendency toward a dazed stupor prevented him from screaming aloud.
  91. The Secret of Nimh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's the "Secret of Nimh" all over again

  92. Next Step by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Release it to the nature.

  93. Didn't you ever watch Pinky and the Brain? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The downside is that they're always trying to take over the world.