Unreal Nature

April 19, 2009

Individuals Are Individual

Filed under: Uncategorized — unrealnature @ 7:29 am

Well, duh. Of course individuals are individual; that’s why we call them ‘individuals,’ not ’sames.’

But apparently there are quite a few scientists — you know, those people trained to be objectively observant? — who find this ‘individual’ thing surprising:

A lab is a lab is a lab. A mouse is a mouse is a mouse. So if you test genetically identically strains of mice in the sterile, controlled, homogeneous confines of a lab in Toledo, Ohio and run the same experiment again in a lab in Berlin, you should get the same results. Not necessarily, according to a just published study in the British science journal Nature Methods, which presents strong evidence that researchers’ current practice of trying to limit variations in laboratories is a fundamental flaw of experimental design, one that increases errors in early drug development tests and in turn drives up the cost of pharmaceutical development.

In their study, Joseph Garner, a Purdue assistant professor of animal sciences and his colleague professor Hanno Wurbel of the Justus-Liebig University of Giessen in Germany observed behavioral differences in three different strains of mice in three different labs in two different types of cages at three different times of year — variations that are not controlled for or currently expected to affect the outcome of an experiment. The team found 10 times more false positives, where one strain appears to act differently from another at rates higher than expected. 

– from The Unraveling of Homogeny by David Nayor (Apr 9, 2009) in Seed magazine

And, amazingly enough, individual birds of a species are not all identical either! Imagine that:

“This is the first study in a natural bird population to study the relationship between trappability and behavioral syndromes,” Garamszegi says.

To see whether collared flycatchers (Ficedula albicollis) have behavioral syndromes, Garamszegi, then at the University of Antwerp in Belgium, and his colleagues worked with flycatchers living in nest boxes near Pilis Field Station in Hungary.

In a test for readiness to cope with novelty, researchers assessed each male’s typical behavior by placing a live female in a cage at his nest box. Then researchers attached a novel object, a piece of white paper, to the male’s nest box and watched to see how curiously he explored the oddity.

To grade birds’ willingness to take risks, researchers determined how close a bird would let them approach. And for aggressive tendencies, the researchers observed how vigorously a territory holder objected to the arrival of a caged male.

With these data, researchers found links between the behaviors in different contexts. Birds willing to explore and cope with that novel piece of paper were also likely to take more risks, letting researchers get closer.

After trying to trap the birds, the researchers linked both traits to a higher tendency to get caught. Researchers then redid their behavioral syndrome analyses, dropping data from the birds that couldn’t be caught. Losing the shy birds changed some of the results.

“Your capturing method really influences the outcome of your study,” Garamszegi says. “When you have a different sample, you may find completely different biological patterns.”

Sampling issues will differ depending on the animal, says Chad Johnson of Arizona State University in Glendale, who studies personalities in spiders. “For myself, I always wondered with fishing spiders if I was only collecting the truly lazy, unreactive spiders that did not submerge under water when they heard me coming.”

Ann Hedrick of the University of California, Davis, who studies behavioral syndromes in crickets, says the new work “draws attention to an important consideration in designing future studies.”

– from Oh, He’s Such a Lab Bird, by Susan Milius (Apr 10, 2009) in ScienceNews

Scientists who have no clue about animals should not be working with animals. I know that “have no clue” is not exactly a scientific phrase, but you know what I mean. At least I hope you do.

-Julie

http://www.unrealnature.com/

8 Comments

  1. I am firmly of the opinion that reductionist science misses much of what is available to be learnt about other species … and that anthropcentric assumptions polish off a lot more potential learning.

    P1: Humans are intelligent.
    P2: Humans do X, Y and Z.

    C1: X, Y and Z are indicators of intelligence.

    P3: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet doesn’t do X, Y or Z
    P4: See C1

    C2: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet is not intelligent.

    Rebuttal: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet can do Q and R, which are functionally equivalent to X and Y

    P5: Intelligence requires all three of X, Y and Z
    P6: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet doesn’t do Z

    C3: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet is not intelligent.

    Rebuttal: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet has now been discovered by Chasem and Stuffem to do Z as well.

    P7: Intelligence requires all three of X, Y and Z done in a particular way.
    P8: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet does X and Y in a different way.

    C4: The splat nosed nurdleflumpet is not intelligent.

    Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth…

    Comment by Felix Grant — April 19, 2009 @ 9:14 am

  2. Exactly. (And I can’t believe there’re no footnotes — tiptoeing carefully so as not to wake the mad footnoter that lives in Felix’s amigdalumdalum-dum-dum.)

    Think of those wildlife TV shows where “researchers” in a jeep or a helicopter chase animals, lasso, tranquilizer dart and then violently wrestle some animal to the ground, extract a tooth, click of a piece of one ear, stap on a massive leather collar with a twenty pound tracking device and a four foot antenna, then release what is left — for scientific observation.

    Imagine I wanted to do research on you British people. I chase one of you down in my Jeep — on the streets of Bristol, lasso him, shoot him with a tranquilizer dart, pull one of his teeth, cut off part of his ear, strap a massive leather collar with a twenty pound tracking device and then set about observing him (following him everywhere with binoculars and a camera). Sure, there’s one of you who would enjoy it, but aside from Felix, I think most people would be a bit off their feed, not quite themselves with such treatment.

    Or we could gently take our English speciman and put him in a tiny cage in a brightly lit laboratory and feed him little pellets . . . and on and on. The instrusiveness and ham-fistedness of the observation methods, the way the experiments are modeled on human behavior or abilities (see Felix’s comment, above) … Dumb, at best. (Not even getting near the hideous surgical things done to animals to “see what happens”.)

    Comment by unrealnature — April 19, 2009 @ 11:15 am

  3. …..I chase one of you down in my Jeep — on the streets of Bristol, lasso him, shoot him with a tranquilizer dart, pull one of his teeth, cut off part of his ear, strap a massive leather collar with a twenty pound tracking device and then set about observing him (following him everywhere with binoculars and a camera). Sure, there’s one of you who would enjoy it…

    First of all I would suspect you would use a Rover. But for enjoying it? A little like the pot-kettle-black.

    Comment by Dr. C. — April 19, 2009 @ 12:46 pm

  4. Seriously, one tends to agree with you about behavioral research. However, IMHO, the complication in behavior is not specific acts (e.g. running away, investigating a white paper in your nest) since these are modular. That is, running away involves many muscular contractions which are basically similar in the species. How to ferret out the ambiguity of reaction to a stimulus would involve knowing exactly what the composition of the pathways involved and, while theoretically possible, is practically impossible. Because neurological response involves hard science processes (i.e. neurochemistry) doesn’t necessarily mean every brain, even in a spider, is wired exactly the same.

    As for human, it is truly amazing how different infants are even in the first day of life. And that’s before the big brain burst in the first six months of life.

    Comment by Dr. C. — April 19, 2009 @ 12:54 pm

  5. Interesting that you should bring that up.

    I thought that all brains were wired differently when you got down to the details (locale the same, individual connections not the same). It’s been my understanding that while we have about the same neurons throughout our lives, the number and nature of the connections between them (number of receptors, number of dendrites, how sensitized, etc.) changes constantly according to use/repeat use and the nature of input for each given individual.

    If that’s so, then what’s the point in what was described in this article in last week’s Econmist? They’re hoping to, eventually, map all the connections in the brain. Won’t such a map be hard to generalize from the mapped individual to the rest of us? Why won’t it be unique and therefore of limited value? Here is a bit from the article. Very cool method, in any case:

    Dr Denk is speeding matters up by using a scanning electron microscope instead. This takes pictures of the surface of an object. Dr Denk (or, rather, his graduate students) are thus able to load the machine with a chunk of plasticised brain and a slicer. Once the microscope has taken a picture of the exposed surface of the chunk, the slicer peels away a layer 25 billionths of a metre thick, revealing a new surface for the next shot. The slice itself can be discarded, so the process is much faster than using a transmission microscope.

    Comment by unrealnature — April 19, 2009 @ 4:12 pm

  6. I forgot the footnote[1]

    ——

    [1] Footnote: tone played on a trumpet using the big toe.

    Comment by Felix Grant — April 20, 2009 @ 2:54 am

  7. Note the uppermost position of the foot on the footnoter. Trumpet playing? No problem. (He plays the organ — with pleasure.)[1]

    ————–
    [1] scientifically verified; entirely empirical; don’t even think about suggesting otherwise

    Comment by unrealnature — April 20, 2009 @ 5:14 am

  8. From the Economist article:
    “The cerebral cortex—the part of a mammal’s brain that thinks—is composed of 2mm-long units called cortical columns. Winfried Denk of the Max Planck Institute for Medical Research in Heidelberg, Germany, estimates that it would take a graduate student (the workhorse of all academic laboratories) about 130,000 years to reconstruct the circuitry of such a column. But efforts to automate the process are gaining ground.”

    What’s 130,000 years (or 130,000 graduate students each doing a year)? A mere pittance. (remembers great years as a grad student)

    Comment by Dr. C. — April 20, 2009 @ 1:58 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Blog at WordPress.com.