Sneak peek: Human preference for other species could determine whether they survive

Human biases affect conservation (or the lack thereof). Our biases also affect protection in other arenas.

Human preference for other species could determine whether they survive

"Color is not the only factor that determines a species' attractiveness to humans. Characteristics such as size and neoteny – the retention of babyish physical traits such as large eyes and large head – also can play major roles for some animals. Pandas, zebras and elephants, for example, are black and white or gray but are highly preferred by humans.


Millions of insects and the countless slimy invertebrates that occupy the oceans are likely not as lucky, Stokes said.
'The work pretty conclusively shows there is a large difference of appeal among organisms, even among closely related organisms,' he said. 'For different kinds of organisms, different qualities seem to cause differences of appeal.'

The work is a signal to conservationists to be mindful of the role of public popularity, and what might cause it, when making decisions about how to deal with various species, even invasive species. He noted that mountain goats introduced to Olympic National Park in Washington state have damaged park ecosystems, but because of their popularity it has been difficult for park managers to remove them. Likewise, while groups of conservationists gather on weekends to pull invasive English ivy from trees and shrubs on public lands, some homeowners continue to plant the attractive vine in their yards, where it can spread to the wild.

'We do have these big differences in how we feel about living things,' Stokes said. 'These feelings are going to play a big role in what we choose to conserve.'"

Sneak peek: Human metabolism recreated in lab

BBC NEWS Health Human metabolism recreated in lab

Following from monkey-on-a-chip and brain-on-a-chip technology, scientists now claim they have captured a comprehensive closed-system model of human physiology. This tool could be very important for replacing some animal experiments.

"Study leader Professor Bernhard Palsson said the network could be used to see what would happen if a drug was used to target a specific metabolic reaction, such as the synthesis of cholesterol.

Or it could be used to predict what would happen if you interfere with a metabolic reaction in a specific type of cell, such as a blood or heart cell.

And eventually it could even be used to create an individual network for a person.

The announcement continues:

'The new tool we've created allows scientists to tinker with a virtual metabolic system in ways that were, until now, impossible, and to test the modelling predictions in real cells,' said Mr Palsson, who is professor of bioengineering and medicine. Study leader Professor Bernhard Palsson said the network could be used to see what would happen if a drug was used to target a specific metabolic reaction, such as the synthesis of cholesterol.

Or it could be used to predict what would happen if you interfere with a metabolic reaction in a specific type of cell, such as a blood or heart cell.

And eventually it could even be used to create an individual network for a person.
'The new tool we've created allows scientists to tinker with a virtual metabolic system in ways that were, until now, impossible, and to test the modelling predictions in real cells,' said Mr Palsson, who is professor of bioengineering and medicine. "

Get out your spell-checker: altruism, autism and blue devils

Activation of brain region predicts altruism: But what does that brain region have to do with autism? No. That's not a typo. Scientists from Duke have linked the two in their research.

Many biologists have asked how altruism could even evolve given that it requires self interests to be subverted in the interests of others. Kin selection, reciprocal altruism and selfish genes, i.e. green beard effect, were all notions that arose to explain altruism. But Duke researchers looked for insights with a proximate explanation, rather than a functional one. They investigated what happens in the brain during situations where one had to choose between altruistic and non-altruistic responses.

"According to the researchers, the results suggest that altruistic behavior may originate from how people view the world rather than how they act in it."

(Ummmm. Like this trait just suddenly cropped up in Homo sapiens See my prior posts on empathy and primate fairness for more)

" 'We believe that the ability to perceive other people's actions as meaningful is critical for altruism,' Tankersley said.

The scientists suggest that studying the brain systems that allow people to see the world as a series of meaningful interactions may ultimately help further understanding of disorders, such as autism or antisocial behavior, that are characterized by deficits in interpersonal interactions.

The researchers are now exploring ways to study the development of this brain region early in life, Tankersley said, adding that such information may help determine how the tendencies toward altruism are established. "

Compare this most recent study to those of another team at Duke who claims to study altruism autism by experimenting on primates. In short, monkeys in full-body restraint would fore go a sip of flavored juice to look at photos of fertile female monkeys or socially dominant monkeys. (perhaps they are just desperate for companionship?) When the results of this study were first released, the popular media drew some analogies to porn, gossip magazines or interest in celebrities. The investigators, however, claimed it provided important insights into autism.

While I acknowledge that low-ranking individuals are wise to keep an eye on those with higher-rank, and males are wise to keep an eye on fertile females (evolutionarily speaking), I find the whole thing dubious.

1. Field primatologists have known for decades that monkeys prefer high-ranking group members – without ever keeping thirsty monkeys in cages. In fact, the social preference for or avoidance of an individual is part of how scientists assess status in monkey groups to begin with. What was the question again? Are popular monkeys preferred over unpopular ones? Who's on first?


2. Does any evolutionary biologist doubt that males take risks or accept costs for access to fertile females? Sexual selection or intrasexual competition ring a bell with anyone here? Would any person doubt this based on his or her own experience or plain old common sense?

My point here is that while noninvasive studies in human subjects are underway, primates are suffering in the lab - for naught. It's criminal.

Help wanted: No immune experience required

From the news release:

"Around 50% of adult human T cells are memory cells, having been activated by infections and illnesses during the course of a person's life. However, animal models, such as those used to test TGN1412 before tests were carried out on humans, do not have many memory T cells because they are deliberately kept in a sterile environment where they are shielded from infections."

Hmmm. Presumably all the specific pathogen free (SPF) colonies are part of a plan to eliminate pesky diseases that vivisectors view as confounding variables. Oh. You mean immune systems don't exist in a vacuum? And that species differences and experience influence immune function? Well go figure. (shucks)

"The research, by scientists from Imperial College London, King's College London, and the Babraham Institute, is presented today at the Club de la Transplantation conference in Cernay la Ville, near Paris.

Dr Federica Marelli-Berg, lead author of the research from the Department of Immunology at Imperial College London, explained: "The drug TGN1412 appeared to be relatively safe when it was tested in animal models. However, when the drug was tested on human volunteers, some experienced very severe side-effects."

I'm sorry. Did she say that some volunteers had very severe side effects? How would anyone in her right mind not admit that all six men suffered extraordinary, indeed life-threatening, effects?

"TGN1412 was developed to treat chronic inflammatory conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, leukaemia and multiple sclerosis, which are caused by the body's immune system attacking itself. It was thought that by targeting CD28, the drug could over-stimulate the rogue T cells, making them burn out and die."

Doh!

Not everyone is so quick to buy this spiel. One expert consulted by the science journal Nature had a very different view:

As part of a report into how to minimize the risks of future clinical trials, immunologist Stephen Inglis of the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control in London developed a new test, using human cells in a test tube, that could have spotted the risk of a cytokine storm (see 'New test could weed out dangerous drug trials').

Inglis also doubts that Marelli-Berg's theory represents the whole story. Monkey cells did not respond to his test in the same way, suggesting that there is something fundamentally different about the two species' cells, rather than simply a question of which cells are present.

What's more, he says it is unclear whether or not lab monkeys do indeed have less-developed immune systems. "They're not like mice," he says. "Colonies of monkeys live in groups, they're not in individual cages, they do get infections and they're not pristine. We would now recommend using human cells for preclinical trials. But whether that is the cause is a different thing."

Maybe monkeys used in preclinical trials conducted in European labs live in groups. Those here in the US certainly do not.
Other posts on TGN1412 can be found in the pharma category at right.

Original news item: Researchers propose reason for severe side-effects of Northwick Park clinical trial

The brain, risk and taxpayers' dollars

Researchers using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) to look at the decision making process in "risky" situations have found that people are generally risk averse, but there are situations that make risk more tolerable.

I'd say these patterns were generally evident from simple observation of human behavior, but the brain activity associated with these behaviors is better understood through the imaging techniques. fMRI studies with human subject make primate experiments that test "economic" or "risk tolerance" behaviors look redundant and wasteful.

Of course, the experiments are also inexorably cruel.

Such experiments, take this one for example, usually entail the exchange of some liquid or food treat for some behavioral task. Sometimes the food or water is reward for doing behavior X. In other cases, food/drink is purportedly a way to measure preference or how an animal values some thing. The primates are food / water deprived to ensure that they "work" during the experiments.

Normally, experimental measurements are taken while primates are in full body restraint (primate chair) with the head bolted into a stationary position so that electrodes can be implanted into the brain. (Hmm - measuring preference in the absence of free will, in the context of a lifelong history of trauma with an n of ??? Who thought of that one?)

Many field primatologists look at preference in wild primates. Some also try to measure costs or benefits of various behaviors, either in terms of resources like food or in the "currency" of evolutionary success. Obviously, such studies don't involve capture or invasive procedures.

fMRI has been used in some captive primate experiments. fMRI replaces some of the most risky and invasive parts of the experiments (surgeries, electrodes, etc). The real point here is that it is possible to do the experiments in human beings.

You can check out the full article on the UCLA study here: UCLA: How does your brain respond when you think about gambling or taking risks?

(PostScript: It's unusual to think of the responses of the brain and not the whole organism. The former could not "respond" without the latter.)