Maybe they’d have more to say if we didn’t bore them so
SPOKANE, Washington (AP) -- Washoe, a female chimpanzee said to be the first non-human to acquire human language, has died of natural causes at the research institute where she was kept.
Washoe, born in about 1965, reportedly taught sign language to three other chimps.
Washoe, who first learned a bit of American Sign Language in a research project in Nevada, had been living on Central Washington University's Ellensburg campus since 1980. Her keepers said she had a vocabulary of about 250 words, although critics contended Washoe and some other primates learned to imitate sign language, but did not develop true language skills.
She died Tuesday night, according to Roger and Deborah Fouts, co-founders of The Chimpanzee and Human Communications Institute on the campus. She was born in Africa about 1965.
She was taken to the veterinary hospital at Washington State University on Wednesday for a necropsy. Her memorial will be November 12.
"Washoe was an emissary, bringing us a message of respect for nature," Dr. Mary Lee Jensvold, assistant director of the nonprofit institute, said Wednesday.
The Fouts went to Central Washington from Oklahoma in 1980 to create a home for Washoe and other chimps.
"The entire CWU community and the Ellensburg community are feeling the loss of our friend, Washoe, one of our daughters," said CWU President Jerilyn S. McIntyre.
Washoe also taught sign language to three younger chimps who remain at the institute, Central Washington spokeswoman Becky Watson said. They are Tatu, 31, Loulis, 29, and Dar, 31.
Washoe was the only chimpanzee at the institute born in Africa and was the matriarch of the chimpanzee family. She was named for Washoe County, Nevada, where she lived with Allen and Beatrix Gardner of the University of Nevada, Reno, from 1966 to 1970.
Primate researcher Jane Goodall, in Roger Fouts' book "Next of Kin," noted the importance of the work with Washoe.
"Roger, through his ongoing conversations with Washoe and her extended family, has opened a window into the cognitive workings of a chimpanzee's mind that adds new dimension to our understanding," Goodall was quoted as saying.
In 1967, the Gardners established Project Washoe to teach the chimp ASL. Previous attempts to teach chimpanzees to imitate vocal languages had failed. Roger Fouts was a graduate student of the Gardners.
For Washoe to be considered reliable on a sign, it had to be seen by three different observers in three separate instances. Then it had to be seen 15 days in a row to be added to her sign list.
The Gardners tried to make Washoe's environment as similar as they could to what a human infant with deaf parents would experience. Researchers communicated with Washoe by sign language, minimizing the use of spoken words.
The Gardners said, for example, when Washoe entered their bathroom, she made the sign for "toothbrush" when she saw one.
But there was controversy over whether the chimp was really using ASL. Among those who doubted chimps could use language were MIT linguist Noam Chomsky and Harvard scientist Steven Pinker.
Chomsky contended that the neural requirements for language developed in humans after the evolutionary split between humans and primates. Pinker argued that primates simply learn to perform certain acts in order to receive rewards, and do not acquire true language.
“simply learn to perform certain acts in order to receive rewards, and do not acquire true language.” Receive rewards…like a paycheck? Oh yeah, we can see how that’s really different from most humans. Yeah, sure.
At least she never referred to herself as an educator.
If it really wanted to make history it could have cleaned its own litter box
House cat makes scientific history
NEW YORK (AP) -- An Abyssinian cat from Missouri, named Cinnamon, has just made scientific history. Researchers have largely decoded her DNA, a step that may aid the search for treatments for both feline and human diseases.
art.cat.dna.ap.jpg
Cinnamon has 20,285 genes, probably about 95 percent of the animal's full complement.
The report adds cats to the roughly two dozen mammals whose DNA has been unraveled, a list that includes dogs, chimps, rats, mice, cows and of course, people.
Why add cats? They get more than 200 diseases that resemble human illnesses, and knowing the details of their genetic makeup should help in the search for vaccines and treatments, researchers say. The list includes a cat version of AIDS, SARS, diabetes, retinal disease and spina bifida, said Stephen J. O'Brien of the National Cancer Institute.
The new work is reported in the November issue of the journal Genome Research by a team including O'Brien and colleague Joan Pontius. It covers about two-thirds of the DNA of Cinnamon, a research cat that lives at the University of Missouri in Columbia; more complete results are expected next year, O'Brien said.
Richard Gibbs of the Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, who led a team that decoded the DNA of a monkey called the rhesus macaque, called the new work "a good outline" of cat DNA. Scientists are looking forward to the complete version, which will be useful for making detailed comparisons to the DNA of other animals, he said.
The full complement of an organism's DNA is called its genome. In cats, as in people, it is made up of nearly 3 billion building blocks. The sequence of those blocks spells out the hereditary information, just as strings of letters spell out sentences. Decoding a genome, which is called sequencing, means identifying the order of the building blocks.
The new work identified 20,285 genes in the cat, probably about 95 percent of the animal's full complement, O'Brien said. That is similar to the 20,000-25,000 genes estimated for humans. E-mail to a friend E-mail to a friend
Helping humans prevent a medical “cat-astrophy?” Yeah, we said it but you were thinking it.
This just in—increased exposure to trucks means increased exposure to truck exhaust fumes, pollution and stuff. Shocking
Diesel-fueled Trucks Drive Up Air Pollution Exposure For Commuters
ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2007) — The daily commute may be taking more of a toll than people realize. A new study by researchers at the University of Southern California and the California Air Resources Board found that up to half of Los Angeles residents' total exposure to harmful air pollutants occurs while people are traveling in their vehicles.
Although the average Los Angeles driver spends about six percent (1.5 hours) of his or her day on the road, that period of time accounts for 33 to 45 percent of total exposure to diesel and ultrafine particles (UFP), according to the study published this month in the journal Atmospheric Environment and available online. On freeways, diesel-fueled trucks are the source of the highest concentrations of harmful pollutants.
"If you have otherwise healthy habits and don't smoke, driving to work is probably the most unhealthy part of your day," says Scott Fruin, D.Env., assistant professor of environmental health at the Keck School of Medicine of USC. "Urban dwellers with long commutes are probably getting most of their UFP exposure while driving."
High air exchange rates that occur when a vehicle is moving make roadways a major source of exposure. Ultrafine particles are of particular concern because, unlike larger particles, they can penetrate cell walls and disperse throughout the body, Fruin says. Particulate matter has been linked to cardiovascular disease, but the ultrafine fraction on roadways appears to be more toxic than larger sizes.
Researchers measured exposure by outfitting an electric vehicle with nine, fast-response air pollution instruments. A video recorded surrounding traffic and driving conditions on freeways and arterial roads throughout the Los Angeles region. Measurements were collected during a three-month period from February to April 2003, and four typical days were selected for a second-by-second video and statistical analysis.
Results showed that the two main sources of pollution were diesel-fueled trucks on freeways and hard accelerations on surface streets. Surprisingly, overall congestion was only a factor on arterial roads and, even then, the highest concentrations of pollutants occurred only when vehicles were accelerating from a stop, Fruin says.
"This study was the first to look at the effect of driving and traffic conditions at this level of detail and to demonstrate the specific factors leading to the highest pollutant exposures for drivers," Fruin says. "The extent that a specific type of vehicle--diesel trucks--dominated the highest concentration conditions on freeways was unexpected."
Driving with the windows closed and recirculating air settings can modestly reduce the particle pollution exposures but does not reduce most gaseous pollutants. Driving at speeds lower than 20 miles-per-hour can also reduce exposure, but none of these measures are as effective as simply cutting back on driving time, he says.
"Shortening your commute and spending less time in the car will significantly reduce your total body burden of harmful pollutants," Fruin says.
Off-road transportation such as taking the train will have a significant impact. Biking or walking are alternatives that also provide valuable health benefits from exercise, he says.
Oh, people realize the threat. It’s just that their realization that they have a mortgage to pay is much more tangible.
A fine example of why those can’t tell jokes study them
Light Humor In The Workplace Is A Good Thing, Review Shows
ScienceDaily (Nov. 1, 2007) — It is commonly believed that kidding around at work isn’t a good thing. Well, it is, says a University of Missouri-Columbia researcher, who has examined how workplace humor affects the working environment.
Chris Robert, assistant professor of management in MU’s Robert J. Trulaske, Sr. College of Business, said that humor – particularly joking around about things associated with the job – actually has a positive impact in the workplace. Occasional humor among colleagues, he said, enhances creativity, department cohesiveness and overall performance.
The conclusion was made by examining theories on humor and integrating literature from a wide variety of disciplines that touch on the subject. Several hundred sources were analyzed by Robert and collaborator Wan Yan, a business doctoral student, who have attempted to bring together literature from numerous disciplines to make the case that humor is serious business.
“Humor has a significant impact in organizations,” said Robert, who also teaches psychology in MU’s College of Arts and Science. “Humor isn’t incompatible with goals of the workplace. It’s not incompatible with the organization’s desire to be competitive. In fact, we argue that humor is pretty important. It’s not just clowning around and having fun; it has meaningful impact on cohesiveness in the workplace and communication quality among workers. The ability to appreciate humor, the ability to laugh and make other people laugh actually has physiological effects on the body that cause people to become more bonded.”
In their theoretical paper, Robert and Yan focus on three primary areas:
* how humor works and its cognitive effects, which the researchers said influences creativity
* why humor has a positive effect within an organization
* the influence of humor on positive emotions and the link between positive emotions and improved performance in organizations, and how culture influences the use of humor – particularly in multinational organizations where people might have differences in their sensibilities and sense of humor
Robert stressed the international aspect is an important part of the research and said the paper addresses some of the key cultural differences between the United States and Asian economic powerhouses such as China and India.
“Humor is difficult in cross cultural situations,” he said. “It’s hard to know what’s going to be funny or when to use humor. Some people have suggested that you just avoid it all together; don’t be funny, don’t try to make jokes. We basically reject that and offer some ground rules for understanding when and what kind of humor might be appropriate.”
“It is commonly believed that kidding around at work isn’t a good thing.” Really? Where do you work—Gitmo?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment