Primate Prose's New Link

This blog has been moved to a different site.  Click here to follow the new version.

Adios!

Under Construction

So after a long winter break, I've decided to revamp my blog and move it to Wordpress.

Don't take this personally, Google.  I'm simply more attracted to grander customization options. We can still be friends, right?

I'll be posting the link in a bit...

Hearing the Ocean, No More

Today I read a fascinating post by Rhett Allain at Wired.com that tackled why one "hears" the ocean while placing an ear up to certain sea shells. His description brought me back to childhood, when the ocean really was in my shell -- you couldn't convince me otherwise!

The truth is I've read about this elsewhere, but I was blown away by Allain's description of how this phenomenon works.  I'm not too sharp in math, but I recommend it for anyone interested in having their childhood crushed indefinitely by physics (in a good way, though).

Photo by JoshuaDavisPhotography

I wonder what human ancestors thought about things like this.  Perhaps they figured it out, too?

Keeping a lively science section

Just a quick note:

In a time when most large media companies are cutting science sections, I have to give NPR a hand for its commitment to covering the topic.

I don't know how long it has sported this new format, but I noticed a change today while reading an article.  The science section departmentalized itself into nine expansive subcategories.  One in particular caught my eye because it's pretty rare in mainstream media -- "Animals."

Let's just say my excitement is borderline embarrassing.

If I could choose any area of science to specialize in, this would be it.  And even if you view "Animals" as just a label, I think making these articles easy to find will spur people to enjoy and think more about the world around them -- a science communicator's dream.

I would explore the science sections of other pubs in this post, but the process wouldn't be as organic.  I'll post other things I see from now on...

Can Lungs Taste?

These past few weeks have been a whirlwind to say the least. I'm finishing up a manuscript (thankfully, I work with the most empathetic dissertator in the world), writing articles for HSW and class, and reading more than my eyes will tolerate -- let's just say I've got a new friend named Systane.

Thankfully, though, things are settling down.  Here's a highlight from my daily browsing.

Taste Buds in the Lungs?

I never imagined lungs could taste...

...until I read an article from BBC News linking taste bud research with possible asthma treatments. Essentially, scientists have found that types of "taste receptors" -- not necessarily the same kind you'd find on your tongue -- line the smooth muscle of the lungs. Despite not sending messages to the brain, the writer reports, these taste buds still react to bitter-tasting compounds by opening up the body's airways.

So can eating bitter foods do the trick for people with asthma?

No -- if you really want to subject yourself to broccoli, go for it. It's very nutritious, I'm sure. (Though I'm still grappling with why nutritious foods can't taste like River Street Sweets pralines).

Rather than ingested, the bitter compounds need to be inhaled. The group found promising results in mice, and scientists in the article seem to be excited about the finding, suggesting bitter compounds may enhance existing inhaler treatments in the future.

I think this article is interesting because I didn't expect to be surprised by such a basic discovery of physiology. I'd be particularly interested to see if the detection of bitter compounds (in the lungs) varies in the same way detection on the tongue differs among individuals. Concerning bitter taste, some people are "supertasters," while others are "non-tasters." It's probable that these traits have genetic roots, but it's interesting to research how they evolved (e.g., to avoid ingesting toxic foods).

Yet evolutionarily-speaking, the lungs' tendency to expand the airway when faced bitter compounds seems counterintuitive, especially considering the the natural relationship between bitterness and toxicity. The body's first reaction to toxic and/or bitter compounds is to expel the substance, not give it a surer way in.  I'll definitely follow this topic in the future to read more about why people think taste buds in the lungs evolved to act in such a way.

For anyone interested, here's the study, which was conducted at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Should legal repayments be limited to humans?

It's been a long haul since the Deepwater Horizon exploded in the Gulf of Mexico, releasing million of barrels of crude oil into the sea above.  BP has promised to pay the fishermen and residents affected by the spill, but what about the "other residents" who didn't get to voice their concerns at town hall?

An article from the ABA Journal voices this point, emphasizing the need to revise environmental law to include reparations for wildlife disturbed by man-made messes (including oil spills).  I don't necessarily agree with this notion in the same way in which PETA does (who, from my understanding, wants to file suit for suffering), but rather I think we need the government to measure environmental ruin in a tangible way to create precedent for future disasters.  Unfortunately, no amount of money can undo all of the suffering, but instead of BP "pledging" to throw money at the situation in the long-run, why not reevaluate the regulatory means that prohibit companies from setting up camp in the first place?  Maybe higher taxes or potential fines for companies working in close proximity to wildlife?

I'll admit: I'm no expert on this topic, but I do know that something productive needs to come out of this oil spill -- why can't more stringent federal protection for the environment and wildlife be it?

Extended Mind

I'm taking a fascinating course called "Biology of Mind," taught by UW-Madison paleo-superstar John Hawks. Our musings are posted on a class blog, and I thought I may as well combine my efforts for a few of my posts.

This week, I reviewed a paper on a researcher's analysis of consciousness and Extended Mind. EM is the idea that portions of the environment can be viewed as extensions of the mind; our minds aren't limited to neural activity in our brain and include interactions with the outside world. A classmate pointed out that Clark, the author of the review and co-author of one of the first papers on the topic, doesn't necessarily disagree with EM, but rather other researchers' tendencies to claim EM constitutes consciousness as well.

Photo by laimagendelmundo

So here's an abridged version of my post:

The article I'm reviewing, "Spreading the Joy? Why the Machinery of Consciousness is (Probably) Still in the Head" by Andy Clark, addresses research concerning the "extended conscious mind," or the ability to view one's "embodied and situated brain" as the physical origin of the mind -- rather than the brain alone (Clark, 2009, p. 964). Let's start this analysis with a few definitions:

• The extended mind: The idea that "cognition and mental states" may depend on physical mechanisms outside of the Central Nervous System and the brain (p. 965).
• The embodied and situated brain: the brain plus other "physical stuff," Clark notes (p. 964). I interpret this to include the entire body, specifically other areas that relay sensory data of the outside world. Some researchers consider material structures (defined below) as representative as well. This concept is vital to the EM theory.
• Extra-neural material structures: Physical objects that serve to store mental data and can present them to the mind. For example, a notebook is a "material vehicle" that can store abstract beliefs (e.g., dispositional or standing) (p. 966). Though this is slightly different (and off topic), I can't help but think of the soul-splitting Harry Potter Horcruxes that immortalize people in physical objects...
• Enactivism: Personal perspective is not received, but rather physically enacted through sensorimotor behavior (p. 969). Choosing what you do with your body shapes your perspective, and thus, consciousness.

Essentially, Clark looks at previous literature, including a paper he authored, and reevaluates previous claims about EM and the possibility of EM creating consciousness. He comes to the conclusion that the existence of consciousness from EM is not supported. He challenges that if this theory gained acceptance, efforts would still be futile in determining where the mind stops and the rest of the world begins. After all, his colleagues are striving to delineate the mind/world boundary, not muddle it further.

I found the original concept of EM using "extra neural material structures" (e.g., material objects) particularly interesting because I had never thought of the mind this way before.

Concerning notebooks, cameras, computers, and so on, it's a tempting idea to accept these vectors as environmental parts of the mind. I think science journalist Carl Zimmer summarizes this concept quite well in an article in Discover. 

In Clark's original work on EM (1998), he contrasts someone who stores mental information internally with someone who is mentally crippled by Alzheimer's disease and uses a notepad to remind himself of information.  The person with Alzheimer's actively uses a physical object to serve as the memory his mind lacks. 

This brings me to the intersection of our minds and digital presences.  Though I don't think what we do online serve as real extensions of our minds, I do think these activities serve a greater purpose for memory storage and expression.  Is the Google calendar you rely so heavily on an extension of your mind?  Personally, I don't think so; but, it does condition your mind to depend on it.  I honestly wonder what such digital extensions do to the brain.  Are those of us dependent on technology less likely to remember things without its aid?

Photo by Spinstah

In this light, I think components of EM are worth exploring further.

What do you think? Is EM a legitimate possibility?

Bonobo Moms Know Best

Mom always knows what's best -- or you eventually realize after the emotional throes of high school.

But for bonobos (which are one of my favorite primate groups, by the way), mothers seem to know what's best for their offspring -- especially their sons -- on hierarchical and reproductive levels, according to a new study.

Photo by tim ellis

Male bonobos are philopatric, meaning they stay in their family group upon reaching reproductive maturity; reversely, once females reach their reproductive prime, they leave to find a new group. Since the males stay, their social statuses are largely determined by the ranking of their mothers (who had to establish their dominance on their own). It's no surprise that these higher ranking males -- with higher ranking mommies -- enjoy the perks of having access to more resources and mates.

The study, which was published in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, found a positive correlation between the dominance status of a son (which is usually determined by his mother) and his mating success.  They also found that when mom is around, she'll try to give her son a leg up on the competition by blocking or intervening in conflicts when her son and a higher-ranking male are vying for the same female.

Can you say "mother's boy?" Anthropomorphize much?

But one downfall is that the researchers didn't determine whether mothers' efforts actually affected the paternity of any new offspring (they did not genetically test each offspring to see who fathered it). The moms probably increased the likelihood of their sons fathering offspring, but it's not exactly proven yet. I imagine the genetic facet might be dovetailed into a new study -- after all, finding this correlation in paternity would confirm that mum's help mattered in the grand, Darwinian scheme of things.

In a nutshell, I think this study is important for two reasons:

1.  Understanding the group dynamics of bonobos, particularly at the reproductive level, will provide researchers and conservationists with the information to create more effective conservation programs.  Since bonobos are endangered, a greater understanding of their reproductive and social behavior will benefit the study and management of both wild and captive groups.  I suspect the bonobo AZA Species Survival Plan committee will take a look at this research sometime in the near future, especially if the work can be replicated and reported elsewhere.

2.  Bonobo matriarchy is intriguing because it's possible that early humans may have behaved similarly. I've always been fascinated with life history theories.  The Grandmothering Hypothesis is one of my favorites and suggests that menopause in women may have been evolutionarily advantageous because it allowed older women to make larger investments in their offspring and grand-offspring. It's the idea that reproductive senescence, or the stopping of reproductive cycles, could not only reduce injury or death during birth for older woman and their babies, but also allow the women to ensure their genes survive. Female bonobos, on the other hand, do not experience menopause; in fact, they continue to reproduce until death. And since female bonobos leave the group upon reaching sexual maturity, I'd imagine there's no grandmothering behavior at all. But there's something familiar about this mother advantage in bonobos.

Menopause aside, what if these reproductive strategies employed by bonobo mothers were also used by early humans to bolster the reproductive success of their offspring? What if they still are? Aren't grandmothers and mothers the most outspoken and pushy matchmakers in their children's/grandchildren's lives?

Depends who you ask, I suppose.

The Internet may have filled that niche recently.

What do you think?

Why Reductionism and the Animal Brain Don't Mesh

Photo by lapolab

I often come across popular science articles that seek to explain human and animal intelligence. These stories are increasingly popular, especially for the poster child species (e.g., dolphins and the great apes). But I'd like to comment on the reductionism we use while picking apart the animal psyche.

For years, an organism's cranial capacity was the gold standard for determining intelligence in humans and animals. Though this proved helpful for paleoanthropologists looking to discern different species of hominids, cranial capacity took a deeper, darker turn when the method was used in efforts to create biological races. Fortunately, this passed relatively quickly with discoveries in genetics.  Then came encephalization quotients and a slew of other ratios...

Fast-forward several years to the birth of the functional MRI (fMRI). The fMRI quickly became a hot tool in neuroscience because researchers could see which parts of the brain become active to certain stimuli. In one case, researchers boast a computer/fMRI combo that literally guesses specific words a person is pondering while in the fMRI machine.

Though these experiments are important, I sometimes feel the results are viewed in a vacuum of reductionism. If one study states that the frontal cortex is active during lying; therefore, the frontal cortex is where lying comes from, right? The same logic has been applied to certain aspects of animal intelligence. The cerebral cortex is linked to consciousness and complex thought. In a nutshell, that's where we should turn to measure these two qualities, right?

Not necessarily.

As pointed out in Jeffrey Kluger's article in TIME, some of the animal kingdom's most advanced tool users lack the same complex cerebral cortices as humans or other mammals. Members of this species even display "theory of mind," or an individual's ability to understand that not everyone knows what he knows. No one knows your preferences, knowledge and beliefs unless you share them with someone else. For instance, if you hide money under your mattress, you assume that you're the only person who knows about it. Kluger points out that some species possess theory of mind without the brainy hardware:

Pointing isn't the only indicator of a smart species that grasps the theory of mind. Blue jays — another corvid — cache food for later retrieval and are very mindful of whether other animals are around to witness where they've hidden a stash. If the jays have indeed been watched, they'll wait until the other animal leaves and then move the food. They not only understand that another creature has a mind; they also manipulate what's inside it.

Generally speaking, I understand and support the need to pinpoint the behaviors and emotions linked to brain structures, but I think grossly reducing this research isn't right. Far too many people simplify this scientific information because the manner in which it's presented is simplified too. Sometimes the information is further reduced for the sake of testing -- we all remember that multiple-choice question in Psyc101 that asks which emotion is associated with the amygdala. (Hint: don't let your amygdala get the best of you!).

This way of thinking greatly disservices the nuances of human and animal cognition. Instead, I agree with a newer way of approaching the brain -- one that values the haphazard power of evolution. NPR's series "The Human Edge" featured an interesting article on the topic that portrays the brain as a mishmash of primitive "ice cream scoops." Our brains are the results of millions of years of evolution piled on top one another. In some cases, animals survived with a "deal with what you get" brain system -- just like blue jays exhibit some level of theory of mind without a cerebral cortex.

If we shed this reductionist line of thinking -- who knows, maybe we'll be more sensitive to other ways of measuring emotion and intelligence in animals. With the growing evidence of animal culture, I certainly believe a more flexible paradigm is needed.

Maybe then I won't be surprised to hear that the persistent fruit fly I've been trying to catch all day is scheming against me.

The Revival

After a lengthy hiatus, I've decided to revive this blog. I figure it will quench my thirst for informal writing while in grad school (not to mention, it'll provide an outlet for clips, too). Hopefully I can keep things more regular.

Join me on this adventure of scientific and journalistic inquiry -- who knows, maybe you'll see me transform into a cheesehead before your very eyes!

New evidence in primate "missing link" controversy

Last week, scientists revealed a primate fossil originally discovered 2 years ago that may be the "missing piece" to the human lineage puzzle. Found near Frankfurt, Germany, the 47 million-year-old fossil is said to possibly be the ancestor of humans and other apes. Interestingly, these lemur-like remains are missing a tooth-comb and grooming claw --two qualities that humans lack as well. (Photo of Ring-Tailed Lemur from National Geographic)

The article does an excellent job of reviewing the discovery, but the WSJ reporter made a great point by writing that the fossil record itself is one large "missing link." At times, I think people have a hard time understanding the specific conditions required for organic remains like animals and plants to fossilize. I hope to learn more about taphonomy, or the process of fossilization, in the future...

Regardless, I'm happy to see the lemur and its great, great ancestor gain consideration in this evolutionary discussion. Lemurs have often been "written-off" so to speak because of their taxonomic isolation in Madagascar. Long live the lemur!

First weekend

After my first weekend at the Golden Lion Tamarin exhibit, I feel less nervous about the internship. I was surprised by the amount of work the exhibit required on a daily basis. It certainly highlights the zoo's efforts to provide the best care for these animals while organizing conservation efforts as well. I also became better acquainted with each of the monkeys.


Free-ranging GLTs (left) at the Smithsonian National Zoological Park

Theo, the offspring of Spree and Bencao, was hard to track because he was always playing so high up in the trees. Theo is also on the forefront of the "Great War" with the grackle birds that already inhabit the trees. It's quite entertaining, actually. Spree, in all her feminine glory, is quite dominant over the group at times. She scent-marked tree limbs by rubbing her chest on the surface. Tamarins have specialized hair follicles that secrete chemicals from glands on their chests and genital areas. She's a bit feisty when Ben grooms her and tries to pull her tracking collar off her head (I don't blame her). Ben is always on the lookout to protect his group. He's interested in anything that seems remotely threatening, and oddly enough, the group shows stress when someone with a wagon pulls a kennel past the exhibit. Like dogs and cats, I was told the monkeys disliked the kennels because they associate it with going to see veterinarians. Here is a description of each tamarin.

The first day was a bit stressful because an eagle owl escaped while the monkeys were outside free-ranging. The bird, sometimes called the "monkey-eating owl," says the Zoo Atlanta Web site, was not exactly the type of animal you'd want on the loose around small primates. My manager quickly herded the monkeys inside while I was cleaning the indoor habitat. I'm notoriously slow at cleaning, so she helped me finish.

The second day went more smoothly. The monkeys were outside the majority of the day playing and entertaining visitors. I was asked many questions about the tamarins, but one replayed like a broken record: "What keeps them from leaving their island?" In all honesty, this is a great question, but I nearly lost my voice answering it over and over. From my understanding and what the director told me, GLTs are extremely territorial in the wild and stay in the same geographic area throughout their lifespans. One must also consider the tamarins' natural instincts in protecting themselves from predators. If they navigate an area well, why would they leave and expose themselves to a new environment where they may not be able to escape predators? Additionally, the tree island provides everything they look for in a natural habitat: food, water and safety. Since the monkeys feel comfortable in their territory, there is no reason for them to leave.