Janine's Blog

Rico: Can Animals Understand Language?

Washington Post: Common Collie or Uberpooch? German Pet's Vocabulary Stuns Scientists
Science: Word Learning in a Domestic Dog: Evidence for "Fast Mapping" (PDF)

First of all, this isn't really a current event; it all happened last summer. But it's fairly current, and it's something I want to talk about, so I will.

The Science article linked above was assigned reading for my Animal Behavior class. The Washington Post article is basically a summary of the Science one. I suggest reading the Science one anyway; it's primary literature but very easy to understand compared to most things in science publications. It is important to note that Science is one of the most prestigious science publications in the United States, and it's no small feat to get your work published there.

Rico is an adult border collie who lives in Germany with his owners. His owners claimed that he knew the names of 200 of his toys. Scientists were skeptic, but they decided to test him using all the normal controls that science requires.

His owners were right. He correctly retrieved 37 of 40 objects after being told the name, and without allowing a human to be in the room with him while he searched. He even learned new objects he had never seen or heard about before. He figured out that when given a name that he didn't recognize, it belonged to the object he didn't recognize (he was correct in 7 out of 10 sessions). And if that wasn't enough, he remembered the names of these novel objects four weeks after he was introduced to them (he was correct in 3 out of 6 trials).

So what does this all mean? There's a lot of controversy among scientists about what this means. Is Rico really understanding the words as words, like humans do? Can he understand the English (or German) language? Or does he just recognize it as a sound label? It's a very good question, and no one really knows for sure what the answer is.

It all comes down to what the definition of "language" is. Dictionary.com's first definition says that language is the "communication of thoughts and feelings through a system of arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols." That's a pretty broad definition. I think everyone can agree that most animals (especially mammals) can communicate their feelings to us (usually something like "Feed me" or "Take me outside"). But, the question is, could Rico speak those words that he learned, assuming he had the morphological capability to form the sounds?

Skeptics tend to define language as something that requires specific grammatical rules and syntax. In this way, animals cannot have languages, assuming that they cannot distinguish between a noun, verb, and adjective. They draw a line between "communication" and "language". The former allows them to send ideas about the present time and place to others (either in their own species or to other species), but the latter would allow them to communicate about the past, present, and future, including places that they are not physically in.

I will be the first to admit that I am biased. I am one of those people who really believes that animals have a special type of connection to us and to each other. I do believe that they could talk to us about things if they were physically able to. I don't have any evidence to support this belief, it's just how I feel about it when I'm around animals. Call it faith, if you need to call it something.

There are scientists who side with me. In a New York Times opinion article (which I can't link to because there isn't a full version of it on the website), Dr. Emily Sue Savage-Rumbaugh says that she's positive that the apes she works with understand language, and that they can form sentences with the same words but different meanings by pointing to symbols (e.g. "Sue chase Kanzi" and "Kanzi chase Sue" mean different things to the apes). But, of course, there are lots of scientists who are skeptical. They believe that we humans want animals to understand our languages, and therefore we think that they do.

I really hope that more truly scientific experiments occur to try to test these ideas. It'll be difficult, but the only way that the skeptics will believe the believers will be to get a good experiment performed. I'm not sure what the best way to go about it would be, but it definitely needs lots of controls. My professor talked about a study (which I believe is still ongoing) with dolphins. They are blindfolding a handler, who can't move their body at all, and they give a randomly-generated command to a dolphin to see what they do. The blindfold and stationary body prove that the animal is only responding to the words, not to any (usually accidental) glances or cues that the animal picks up on. Then, an observer is out of sight of the dolphin, and records what the dolphin does without knowing what the handler commanded (so they can't say "Well, that was close enough"). Maybe some interesting insight will come out of this study.

The more I learn in this class, the more I want to work with animals. I really feel like that's my calling, even though I don't know exactly what I want to do. I believe we have a lot to learn from animals, and that learning more about them will give us more insight into our own species.

Will cancer vaccine get to all women?

New Scientist: Will cancer vaccine get to all women?

Basically, this article says that there will be a highly effective vaccine for human papilloma virus (HPV) going on the market soon. This is the sexually-transmitted virus that can cause genital warts and the more deadly cervical cancer in women. It's extremely common, as most forms of it are not harmful. But some are, which means that it needs to be prevented.

So there are some vaccines coming out soon. The problem here is that a vaccine can only prevent an infection, not cure it. This means that people (most importantly girls, since guys with HPV hardly ever develop a cancer from it, but they should get vaccinated too to slow down infection rates) need to get this vaccine before they become sexually active in order for it to be effective.

Even if you didn't read the article, you can probably see where this is heading. There are groups both here in the United States and in other countries that oppose giving this vaccine to young girls because they believe it will encourage the girls to go out and have premarital sex. All I can say is: wow. It's true that abstinence is the only way to be sure you'll never get this virus, but the truth is there will never be a time when everyone will abstain from sex until marriage. And because that will never happen, this vaccine needs to be given to everyone as early as possible.

This makes me wonder if people will oppose an HIV vaccine, if it ever happens. I'm sure there will be people who say they don't need it because they're not gay (and of course, only gay people can get HIV, right?). It makes me sick. How can we ever hope to get rid of these diseases if people won't allow themselves (or their children) to be vaccinated? This isn't just a matter of protecting them, it's also a matter of protecting everyone they have sex with.

It looks like it will be hardest getting people in developing countries vaccinated, as they tend to have even stricter customs and morals regarding premarital sex (especially for women). I don't think it'll be easy to get this to work. The leaders of the countries really need to stress the importance of this vaccine. Even if your daughter is "virtuous" and would never have sex before marriage, what happens if she gets raped? Or what if her husband has HPV?

They suggest getting the men vaccinated, as this would be less taboo. It's definitely a start. But then you have a problem with lesbian sex. Granted, I don't know how common that is in other countries, but I'm sure it's possible to pass HPV via lesbian sex. In order for this to be truly effective, everyone needs to be vaccinated.

At the very least, I hope it's successful here in the United States. I'm skeptical though, as the country seems to be steadily moving towards a very conservative view on sex and marriage. I'm sorry, but keeping people safe and healthy should override people's sense of "morals," especially when said morals are negatively affecting those around you. A vaccine is not going to make your kid a slut.

Our Dying Planet

CNN: Report: Earth's ecosystem at risk
CNN: Senate votes for ANWR oil drilling
CNN: GM, Energy Department to develop fuel cell cars

I am discussing three articles this time since they're all related. The first is a report about what's happening to our planet's ecosystem. I knew the general points of this report already, since I've been taking science classes forever. But I'm glad it's in the news, because it's important that the general public realizes what's happening here.

Our planet is dying. Species extinction is occurring at a unprecedented rate. "More land was changed to cropland since 1945...than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined," as the article states. Huge sources of life on Earth are being destroyed by humans.

This is not just a matter of losing the diversity and beauty of life (which, to me, is a big deal). It's also a matter of diseases breaking out more often, rainfall not being enough to water the crops, and fish dying so the fishing industry declines. We read an article in Marine Biology class last semester about the fishing industry, and what is happening to it. There is hardly any fish left out there, compared to what there used to be, because of huge amounts of overfishing. And the industry is suffering for it now.

The second article is about the recent vote by the Senate that allows the United States to drill for oil in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). This wildlife refuge is home to many types of animals, including polar bears and caribou. And we're going to bring machinery into their home in order to get oil.

This was done partly because of the really high gas prices right now. According to the article, this oil will likely not even be in the market for another decade or so. How is that going to help the current gas prices? I doubt they'll still be this high 10 years from now. Not to mention that we run the risk of killing even more populations of animals. I am willing to pay the $2.50/gallon in gas in exchange for the protection of this refuge. Money can always be gained back. Extinct animals cannot.

The third article is about hydrogen cars. This looks promising to me. It'll be quite some time before they're cheap enough for the public to get, plus the fact that gas stations would need to offer a way to refuel the fuel cells. However, this is a long-term solution to our oil problem. If more money and energy is put into developing technology like this, instead of putting it towards drilling in Alaska, we won't have to worry about what happens when the oil in Alaska runs out. Using up the world's oil resources does not help us.

I think being a biology major has made me appreciate this planet more than I ever did before. There's so much here that people miss out on. From the microbes of the sea that produce a huge amount of carbon (which helps sustain other forms of life), to the immensely powerful polar bears of Alaska, to the cats and dogs we keep as pets, there is such great beauty on Earth. What gives us the right to destroy it for our own good, when there are alternatives for us? This is not a case of "survival of the fittest" (I hate that term, by the way). This is a case of humans doing whatever is most convenient, despite the fact that all of this will lead to our decline in the end. Sure, it's going to happen one day anyway. But why bring the rest of the planet down with us?

More on Terri Schiavo

CNN: Schindlers launch new appeal: Schiavo attorney calls further legal action futile, desperate

I don't really want to focus only on this case, but this article brought up a pretty sickening thing that I wanted to mention.

In his five-page decision Saturday, Greer said that Schiavo's parents had failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to prove their latest assertion: that Terri Schiavo had attempted to verbalize "I want to live."

"The motion filed by Schiavo's parents motion said, "She managed to articulate the first two vowel sounds, first articulating AHHHHHHH and then virtually screaming WAAAAAAAA."

Schiavo did not say anything further on that occasion.

So apparently, saying "AHHHHHHH" and then "WAAAAAAAA" means "I want to live"? What? First of all, those are sounds, not words. Even babies make those sounds, before they learn to talk or understand words. Second of all, if by some miracle she was saying "I want", who's to say she was saying "I want to live"? Maybe she was saying "I want a puppy", for all we know.

It was really sickening to read that her parents are basically using any tiny thing Terri does to try and win this case. I know they are desperate, but still, doing something like this is totally uncalled for. They are manipulating her "words" to mean what they want them to mean. Even though the judge did not count this as real evidence, it's still sick that her parents would do something like this. I wouldn't want my parents to say I said something that I didn't. You can't even infer anything close to "I want to live" from those sounds.

I know that this claim was used as evidence because they're desperate to save her. But even if they had good intentions, that is not a good excuse to do something like this. It just makes them lose any credibility they might have had in my eyes.

Terri Schiavo

Abstract Appeal: Terri Schiavo Information Page

If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend that you read the above information page about the Terri Schiavo case. It's a blog written by an impartial (or, as impartial as one can be) Florida lawyer. He writes about all sorts of Florida cases in his blog, and has dedicated a lot of time and research to bringing as many facts about Terri's case to light as possible.

I have a lot of thoughts about this case, and I'm going to try to articulate them. First of all, I think that Terri should be allowed to die. She has little-to-no cerebrum left in her brain, which means that she is incapable of thinking or understanding the world around her. She is little more than a person with reflexes.

Her husband, Michael, has said that Terri would not want to live this way. I sympathize with this, because I know that I would not want to live that way. It can hardly be called living at all. I understand that we will never know for sure what Terri wants. However, the fact that there have been multiple trials and appeals regarding this case, and they have all gone Michael's way, gives me the confidence to say that she should be allowed to die. The case has been looked at inside and out, and always the same conclusion is reached: she is in a persistent vegetative state, and Terri most likely does not want to live in that manner.

I do understand and sympathize with Terri's parents. I know that they must be hurting so much over this. I would be too. But if Terri is kept alive, how long will that last for? Do her parents want to keep Terri alive until she dies of old age (or, I suppose, until they die of old age, since they'd probably go first)? She is not going to get better. We know hardly anything about how the brain works, so we won't have any way to fix her. Even if we did develop something 20 years from now, it'd likely be too late for her. Unless some miracle causes her brain to regenerate (which isn't going to happen, I'm sorry), there is no hope for her recovery. She's going to be as she is now until the day she dies, whether that's now or 20 years from now.

I definitely think that she should get a lethal injection instead of being starved to death, but unfortunately, lethal injections are illegal in Florida (for something like this, anyway; I don't know their death penalty policies). So, this is the only way she can die, assuming she isn't shot or something. And even though starving to death sounds horrible, you have to remember that it's very unlikely that she can feel any pain right now. Even if she could, her brain would most likely be unable to process it properly, and so she wouldn't know that she's in pain. And I believe she is given morphine anyway, just in case she can feel the pain.

Sometimes I do think that maybe she should be kept alive. But whenever I think about that, I think about what I'd feel if my spouse was kept alive for so many years in this state. If he had explicitly told me that he wouldn't want to die, then okay. But otherwise, it just plain hurts to see someone you love in that situation. There comes a point when you have to move on. I have a feeling that Terri would want both her husband and her parents to move on, and that's not going to really happen until she's dead. There comes a point where you have to accept the fact that she isn't going to get better, and that keeping her alive does nothing except give you the peace of mind that she's still on this planet. Terri most likely does not understand that she is living. She is being kept alive for her loved ones, not for herself.

One thing that I do know is that this should be a family matter, not a state or nation matter. The fact that a law was created for one person is crazy. And then the President comes to sign it. He didn't do that because he respects life, but because it gives him more political support. It's horrible to imagine that this private family matter about one woman has turned into a way for people to get political advantages. It's sickening. What if Terri did magically get better and see everything that has happened? Imagine regaining consciousness (since that's effectively what she would be doing) after 15 years and finding out that your name is on the front page of all of the newspapers and news websites. And why? Because people outside your family got involved in the decision of whether you should live or die.

There really is no straight answer to this case, which is why it's such a big controversy. From the looks of it, she isn't going to have her feeding tube reinserted again. Although I'm pretty confident that this is the best decision for everyone involved, I can't help but feel apprehensive about it. I suppose that's a good thing though, because she is a living being, after all. I just hope that once this is all over that the right decision had been made, and that Michael and Terri's parents can reconcile to some degree.

School Gunman

CNN: School gunman stole police pistol, vest: Student killed 9 before turning weapon on himself

All I can say is: why?  There are mentions in this article about how maybe Jeff Weise is a neo-Nazi type person.  Maybe that explains why he'd go on a killing rampage.  The authorities don't even think he had targets; he just killed randomly.

I kind of wish I could know what went through this kid's head.  I honestly cannot understand why someone would kill people for seemingly no reason.  If he had a grudge, or a motive of some sort, then maybe that would be a reason (though not an excuse).  But we possibly may never know why he killed these people.  He even killed his own grandfather.  What did he expect to gain out of killing random people?  Maybe nothing.

It saddens me that kids have to go to schools with metal detectors (which didn't even help in this case; Jeff just killed the security guard).  It saddens me that students will be wary of their peers.  That sort of environment is no place to get an education.  You should not be scared to go to school.

I am not scared of my peers here at college.  Do I think that college-aged students are less likely to open fire than younger students?  Maybe.  That's probably inaccurate to some degree, but maybe it's not.  The environment in college is very different than it is in middle and high school.  Maybe Jeff felt trapped.

Hi there!

This is my new blog. I'm not sure what I'm going to be using this for yet, but we'll see.

Edit on 2005/03/26 at 02:40 AM: I have decided to use this blog as a place to discuss my thoughts and opinions on current events. I'll be picking a current news article and writing about it for each post. I will try to post at least weekly, though there will likely be times when I do not post.