Chapter 16. None
Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, or subscribe to our mailing list, to receive news updates. Learn more.
Dr. Lisa Sanders. On Thursday we challenged Well readers to solve the case of a middle-aged woman with arthritis who developed a wasting illness after what looked like a simple cold. Her rheumatologist was worried that the immune suppressing medications the patient took to treat her joint disease had caused the new illness. More than 300 of you took on the challenge, and 17 of you correctly identified this rarity. The correct diagnosis is … Whipple’s disease The first reader to make the diagnosis was Mike Natter, a second-year medical student at the Sidney Kimmel Medical College at Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia. Mike said it was an easy case for him because he had been studying for an exam the next day and had just read about the disease. He is a frequent contributor to this column and says that he got the right diagnosis twice before but this was the first time he got it in first. Well done, Mike! The Diagnosis Whipple’s was first identified in 1907 by Dr. George Whipple, who was caring for a fellow physician who had “gradual loss of weight and strength, stools consisting chiefly of neutral fat and fatty acids, indefinite abdominal signs, and a peculiar multiple arthritis.” The patient eventually died. Dr. Whipple suspected an infectious cause because he found bacteria in many of the patient’s affected tissues, but the organism itself wasn’t identified for nearly 80 years. The bug, Tropheryma whipplei, is common and found mostly in soil. And yet the infection is rare. There have been only about 1,000 reported cases of Whipple’s disease in the more than one hundred years since it was first described. Over two-thirds of those were in middle-aged white men. Many of them were farmers or others who had occupational exposure to soil. © 2015 The New York Times Company
Link ID: 20659 - Posted: 03.07.2015
By David Masci Potential Republican presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson made news earlier this week when he said that being gay is a “choice,” but when it comes to public opinion, polls show that Americans remain divided over whether “nature” or “nurture” is ultimately responsible for sexual orientation. Four-in-ten Americans (42%) said that being gay or lesbian is “just the way some choose to live,” while a similar share (41%) said that “people are born gay or lesbian,” according to the most recent Pew Research Center poll on the issue, conducted in 2013. Fewer U.S. adults (8%) said that people are gay or lesbian due to their upbringing, while another one-in-ten (9%) said they didn’t know or declined to give a response. People with the most education are the most likely to say that gays and lesbians were born that way. Indeed, 58% of Americans with a postgraduate degree say that people are born gay or lesbian, compared with just 35% of those with a high school diploma or less. The percentage of all Americans who believe that people are born gay or lesbian has roughly doubled (from 20% to 41%) since 1985, when the question was asked in a Los Angeles Times survey. More than three decades of Gallup polls also show a considerable rise in the view that being gay or lesbian is a product of “nature” rather than “nurture.” But the most recent survey, in 2014, still finds that the nation remains split in its feelings on the origins of sexual orientation. Copyright 2015 Pew Research Center
Keyword: Sexual Behavior
Link ID: 20658 - Posted: 03.07.2015
In Archaeology it is very rare to find any soft tissue remains: no skin, no flesh, no hair and definitely no brains. However, in 2009, archaeologists from York Archaeological Trust found something very surprising at a site in Heslington, York. During the excavation of an Iron-age landscape at the University of York, a skull, with the jaw and two vertebrae still attached, was discovered face down in a pit, without any evidence of what had happened to the rest of its body. At first it looked like a normal skull but it was not until it was being cleaned, that Collection Projects Officer, Rachel Cubitt, discovered something loose inside. “I peered though the hole at the base of the skull to investigate and to my surprise saw a quantity of bright yellow spongy material. It was unlike anything I had seen before.” says Rachel. Sonia O’Connor, from Archaeological Sciences, University of Bradford, was able to confirm that this was brain. With the help of York Hospital’s Mortuary they were able to remove the top of the skull in order to get their first look at this astonishingly well-preserved human brain. Since the discovery, a team of 34 specialists have been working on this brain to study and conserve it as much as possible. By radiocarbon dating a sample of jaw bone, it was determined that this person probably lived in the 6th Century BC, which makes this brain about 2,600 years old. By looking at the teeth and the shape of the skull it is likely this person was a man between 26 and 45 years old. An examination of the vertebrae in the neck tells us that he was first hit hard on the neck, and then the neck was severed with a small sharp knife, for reasons we can only guess. © Copyright York Archaeological Trust 2013-2015.
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 20657 - Posted: 03.07.2015
by Jan Piotrowski It's not the most charismatic fossil ever found, but it may reveal secrets of our earliest evolution. Unearthed in Ethiopia, the broken jaw with greying teeth suggests that the Homo lineage – of which modern humans are the only surviving member – existed up to 400,000 years earlier than previously thought. The fragment dates from around 2.8 million years ago, and is by far the most ancient specimen to bear the Homo signature. The earliest such fossil was one thought to be up to 2.4 million years ages old. Showing a mixture of traits, the new find pinpoints the time when humans began their transition from primitive, apelike Australopithecus to the big-brained conquerer of the world, says Brian Villmoare from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, whose student made the find. Geological evidence from the same area, also reported this week in a study led by Erin DiMaggio from Pennsylvania State University, shows that the jaw's owner lived just after a major climate shift in the region: forests and waterways rapidly gave way to arid savannah, leaving only the occasional crocodile-filled lake. Except for the sabre-toothed big cat that once roamed these parts, the environment ended up looking much like it does today. It was probably the pressure to adapt to this new world that jump-started our evolution into what we see looking back at us in the mirror today, according to Villmoare. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Link ID: 20654 - Posted: 03.05.2015
Loss of sensation in the eye that gradually leads to blindness has been prevented with an innovative technique, Canadian surgeons say. Abby Messner, 18, of Stouffville, Ont., lost feeling in her left eye after a brain tumour was removed, along with a nerve wrapped around it, when she was 11. Messner said she didn’t notice the loss of feeling until she scratched the eye. Messner wasn’t able to feel pain in the eye, a condition called corneal anaesthesia. Despite her meticulous care, the eye wouldn’t blink to protect itself when confronted by dust. A scar formed on her cornea, burrowed through, and formed a scar doctors feared would eventually obliterate her vision. "Everyone was like, 'Wow, she had a brain tumour and she’s fine," Messner recalled. "You don't really think that everything that is holding me back is my eye." Messner had to give up competitive swimming because of irritation from the chlorine, playing hockey, spending time outdoors where wind was a hazard or inside dry shopping malls. Over time, ophthalmology surgeon Dr. Asam Ali at SickKids introduced the idea of a nerve graft to restore feeling in the eye. "She started getting feeling back at about the two, three-month mark and that was a real surprise to her and we were very happy at that point because that was a lot faster than anything that had been reported before," Ali said. ©2015 CBC/Radio-Canada.
Alison Abbott Europe’s ambitious but contentious €1-billion Human Brain Project (HBP) has announced changes to its organization in a response to criticisms of its management and scientific trajectory by many high-ranking neuroscientists. On 26 February, the HBP's Board of Directors voted narrowly to disband the three-person executive committee that had run the project, which launched in October 2013 and is intended to boost digital technologies such as supercomputing through collaboration with neuroscience. That decision is expected to be endorsed by HBP’s 85 or so partner universities and research institutes by the end of this week. The revamp comes seven months after 150 top neuroscientists signed a protest letter to the European Commission, charging, among other things, that the committee was acting autocratically and running the project's scientific plans off course. Led by the charismatic but divisive figure of Henry Markram, a neuroscientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL) which coordinates the HBP, the committee had stirred up anger last spring when it revealed plans to cut cognitive neuroscience from the initiative. The neuroscientists vowed to boycott the HBP's future phases if their concerns were ignored. An independent mediation committee was established to look into the charges and make recommendations. Its report, which is expected to further shake up the HBP's management, will be published in the next few weeks. In the meantime, the three-person committee's responsibilities will be taken on by the HBP's Board of Directors (currently a 22-strong team of scientists that includes the disbanded executive committee, although they do not have voting rights). © 2015 Nature Publishing Group
Keyword: Brain imaging
Link ID: 20651 - Posted: 03.05.2015
By Abby Phillip Jan Scheuermann, who has quadriplegia, brings a chocolate bar to her mouth using a robot arm guided by her thoughts. Research assistant Elke Brown watches in the background. (University of Pittsburgh Medical Center) Over at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, also known as DARPA, there are some pretty amazing (and often top-secret) things going on. But one notable component of a DARPA project was revealed by a Defense Department official at a recent forum, and it is the stuff of science fiction movies. According to DARPA Director Arati Prabhakar, a paralyzed woman was successfully able use her thoughts to control an F-35 and a single-engine Cessna in a flight simulator. It's just the latest advance for one woman, 55-year-old Jan Scheuermann, who has been the subject of two years of groundbreaking neurosignaling research. First, Scheuermann began by controlling a robotic arm and accomplishing tasks such as feeding herself a bar of chocolate and giving high fives and thumbs ups. Then, researchers learned that -- surprisingly -- Scheuermann was able to control both right-hand and left-hand prosthetic arms with just the left motor cortex, which is typically responsible for controlling the right-hand side. After that, Scheuermann decided she was up for a new challenge, according to Prabhakar.
Link ID: 20647 - Posted: 03.04.2015
by Catherine de Lange You won't believe you do it, but you do. After shaking hands with someone, you'll lift your hands to your face and take a deep sniff. This newly discovered behaviour – revealed by covert filming – suggests that much like other mammals, humans use bodily smells to convey information. We know that women's tears transmit chemosensory signals - their scent lowers testosterone levels and dampens arousal in men - and that human sweat can transmit fear. But unlike other mammals, humans don't tend to go around sniffing each other. Wondering how these kinds of signals might be exchanged, Noam Sobel and his colleagues at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel turned to one of the most common ways in which people touch each other - shaking hands. "We started looking at people and noticed that afterwards, the hand somehow inadvertently reached the face," says Sobel. To find out if people really were smelling their hands, as opposed to scratching their nose, for example, his team surreptitiously filmed 153 volunteers. Some were wired up to a variety of physiological instruments so that airflow to the nose could be measured without them realising this was the intention. The volunteers were filmed as they greeted a member of the team, either with or without a handshake. The researchers recorded how often the volunteers lifted their hands close to their nose, and how long they kept them there, the minute before and after the greeting. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Keyword: Chemical Senses (Smell & Taste)
Link ID: 20645 - Posted: 03.04.2015
By Felicity Muth Visual illusions are fun: we know with our rational mind that, for example, these lines are parallel to each other, yet they don’t appear that way. Similarly, I could swear that squares A and B are different colours. But they are not. This becomes clearer when a connecting block is drawn between the two squares (see the image below). Illusions aren’t just fun tricks for us to play with, they can also tell us something about our minds. Things in the world look to us a certain way, but that doesn’t mean that they are that way in reality. Rather, our brain represents the world to us in a particular way; one that has been selected over evolutionary time. Having such a system means that, for example, we can see some animals running but not others; we couldn’t see a mouse moving from a mile away like a hawk could. This is because there hasn’t been the evolutionary selective pressures on our visual system to be able to do such a thing, whereas there has on the hawk’s. We can also see a range of wavelengths of light, represented as particular colours in our brain, while not being able to see other wavelengths (that, for example, bees and birds can see). Having a system limited by what evolution has given us means that there are many things we are essentially blind to (and wouldn’t know about if it weren’t for technology). It also means that sometimes our brain misrepresents physical properties of the external world in a way that can be confusing once our rational mind realises it. Of course, all animals have their own representation of the world. How a dog visually perceives the world will be different to how we perceive it. But how can we know how other animals perceive the world? What is their reality? One way we can try to get this is through visual illusions. © 2015 Scientific American
|By Christof Koch In the Dutch countryside, a tall, older man, dressed in a maroon sports coat, his back slightly stooped, stands out because of his height and a pair of extraordinarily bushy eyebrows. His words, inflected by a British accent, are directed at a middle-aged man with long, curly brown hair, penetrating eyes and a dark, scholarly gown, who talks in only a halting English that reveals his native French origins. Their strangely clashing styles of speaking and mismatched clothes do not seem to matter to them as they press forward, with Eyebrows peering down intently at the Scholar. There is something distinctly odd about the entire meeting—a crossing of time, place and disciplines. Eyebrows: So I finally meet the man who doubts everything. The Scholar: (not missing a beat) At this time, I admit nothing that is not necessarily true. I'm famous for that! Eyebrows: Is there anything that you are certain of? (sotto voce) Besides your own fame? The Scholar: (evading the sarcastic jibe) I can't be certain of my fame. Indeed, I can't even be certain that there is a world out there, for I could be dreaming or hallucinating it. I can't be certain about the existence of my own body, its shape and extension, its corporality, for again I might be fooling myself. But now what am I, when I suppose that there is some supremely powerful and, if I may be permitted to say so, malicious deceiver who deliberately tries to fool me in any way he can? Given this evil spirit, how do I know that my sensations about the outside world—that is, it looks, feels and smells in a particular way—are not illusions, conjured up by Him to deceive me? It seems to me that therefore I can never know anything truly about the world. Nothing, rien du tout. I have to doubt everything. © 2015 Scientific American
Link ID: 20640 - Posted: 03.03.2015
By Neuroskeptic In an interesting short paper just published in Trends in Cognitive Science, Caltech neuroscientist Ralph Adolphs offers his thoughts on The Unsolved Problems of Neuroscience. Here’s Adolphs’ list of the top 23 questions (including 3 “meta” issues), which, he says, was inspired by Hilbert’s famous set of 23 mathematical problems: Problems that are solved, or soon will be: I. How do single neurons compute? II. What is the connectome of a small nervous system, like that of Caenorhabitis elegans (300 neurons)? III. How can we image a live brain of 100,000 neurons at cellular and millisecond resolution? IV. How does sensory transduction work? Problems that we should be able to solve in the next 50 years: V. How do circuits of neurons compute? VI. What is the complete connectome of the mouse brain (70,000,000 neurons)? VII. How can we image a live mouse brain at cellular and millisecond resolution? VIII. What causes psychiatric and neurological illness? IX. How do learning and memory work? X. Why do we sleep and dream? XI. How do we make decisions? XII. How does the brain represent abstract ideas? Problems that we should be able to solve, but who knows when: XIII. How does the mouse brain compute? XIV. What is the complete connectome of the human brain (80,000,000,000 neurons)? XV. How can we image a live human brain at cellular and millisecond resolution? XVI. How could we cure psychiatric and neurological diseases? XVII. How could we make everybody’s brain function best? Problems we may never solve: XVIII. How does the human brain compute? XIX. How can cognition be so flexible and generative? XX. How and why does conscious experience arise? Meta-questions: XXI. What counts as an explanation of how the brain works? (and which disciplines would be needed to provide it?) XXII. How could we build a brain? (how do evolution and development do it?) XXIII. What are the different ways of understanding the brain? (what is function, algorithm, implementation?) Adolphs R (2015). The unsolved problems of neuroscience. Trends in cognitive sciences PMID: 25703689
Link ID: 20637 - Posted: 03.02.2015
By JONATHAN MAHLER The mother of the bride wore white and gold. Or was it blue and black? From a photograph of the dress the bride posted online, there was broad disagreement. A few days after the wedding last weekend on the Scottish island of Colonsay, a member of the wedding band was so frustrated by the lack of consensus that she posted a picture of the dress on Tumblr, and asked her followers for feedback. “I was just looking for an answer because it was messing with my head,” said Caitlin McNeill, a 21-year-old singer and guitarist. Within a half-hour, her post attracted some 500 likes and shares. The photo soon migrated to Buzzfeed and Facebook and Twitter, setting off a social media conflagration that few were able to resist. As the debate caught fire across the Internet — even scientists could not agree on what was causing the discrepancy — media companies rushed to get articles online. Less than a half-hour after Ms. McNeil’s original Tumblr post, Buzzfeed posted a poll: “What Colors Are This Dress?” As of Friday afternoon, it had been viewed more than 28 million times. (White and gold was winning handily.) At its peak, more than 670,000 people were simultaneously viewing Buzzfeed’s post. Between that and the rest of Buzzfeed’s blanket coverage of the dress Thursday night, the site easily smashed its previous records for traffic. So did Tumblr. Everyone, it seems, had an opinion. And everyone was convinced that he, or she, was right. “I don’t understand this odd dress debate and I feel like it’s a trick somehow,” Taylor Swift wrote on Twitter. “PS it’s OBVIOUSLY BLUE AND BLACK.” “IT’S A BLUE AND BLACK DRESS!” wrote Mindy Kaling. “ARE YOU KIDDING ME,” she continued, including an unprintable modifier for emphasis. © 2015 The New York Times Company
Link ID: 20635 - Posted: 02.28.2015
By Pascal Wallisch If you are just encountering The Dress for the first time, you might first want to click here to see what all the fuss was about. The brain lives in a bony shell. The completely light-tight nature of the skull renders this home a place of complete darkness. So the brain relies on the eyes to supply an image of the outside world, but there are many processing steps between the translation of light energy into electrical impulses that happens in the eye and the neural activity that corresponds to a conscious perception of the outside world. In other words, the brain is playing a game of telephone and—contrary to popular belief—our perception corresponds to the brain’s best guess of what is going on in the outside world, not necessarily to the way things actually are. This has been recognized for at least 150 years, since the time of Hermann von Helmholtz. This week, it was recognized by masses of people on the Internet, who have been debating furiously over what should be a simple question: What color is this dress? Many parts of the brain contribute to any given perception, and it should not be surprising that different people can reconstruct the outside world in different ways. This is true for many perceptual qualities, including form and motion. While this guessing game is going on all the time, it is possible to demonstrate it clearly by generating impoverished stimulus displays that are consistent with different, mutually exclusive interpretations. That means the brain will not necessarily commit to one interpretation, but will switch back and forth. These are known as ambiguous or bi-stable stimuli, and they illustrate the point that the brain is ultimately only guessing when perceiving the world. It usually just has more information to disambiguate the interpretation. © 2014 The Slate Group LLC. All
Link ID: 20634 - Posted: 02.28.2015
Carmen Fishwick It’s not every day that fashion and science come together to polarise the world. Tumblr blogger Caitlin posted a photograph of what is now known as #TheDress – a layered lace dress and jacket that was causing much distress among her friends. The distress spread rapidly across social media, with Taylor Swift admitting she was “confused and scared”. The internet is now made up by people firmly in two camps: the white and gold, and the blue and black – with each thinking the other is completely wrong. But Ron Chrisley, director of the Centre for Research in Cognitive Science at the University of Sussex, believes that the problem mainly lies in the fact that everyone has forgotten we are dealing with a colour illusion. Chrisley said: “The first step in reaching a truce in the dress war is to construct a demonstration that can show to the white-and-gold crowd how the very same dress can also look blue and black under different conditions.” The image below, tweeted by @namin3485, demonstrates that even though the right-hand side of each image is the same, in the context of the two different left halves, the right is interpreted as being either white and gold, or blue and black. So does this mean people who are less self-confident are more likely to be able to see both, at least eventually? Chrisley said: “My guess is it’s not to do with self-confidence. It’s a perceptual issue. I could imagine someone that’s open minded could still see it only one way. This is below the level of us trying to understand other peoples views. It’s more physiological than that.” © 2015 Guardian News and Media Limited
Link ID: 20633 - Posted: 02.28.2015
Fatty liver disease, or the buildup of fat in the liver, and sleep apnea, marked by snoring and interruptions of breathing at night, share some things in common. The two conditions frequently strike people who are overweight or obese. Each afflicts tens of millions of Americans, and often the diseases go undiagnosed. Researchers used to believe that sleep apnea and fatty liver were essentially unrelated, even though they occur together in many patients. But now studies suggest that the two may be strongly linked, with sleep apnea directly exacerbating fatty liver. In a study published last year in the journal Chest, researchers looked at 226 obese middle-aged men and women who were referred to a clinic because they were suspected of having sleep apnea. They found that two-thirds had fatty liver disease, and that the severity of the disease increased with the severity of their sleep apnea. A study last year in The Journal of Pediatrics found a similar relationship in children. The researchers identified sleep apnea in 60 percent of young subjects with fatty liver disease. The worse their apnea episodes, the more likely they were to have fibrosis, or scarring of the liver. Though it is still somewhat unclear, some doctors suspect that the loss of oxygen from sleep apnea may increase chronic inflammation, which worsens fatty liver. Although fat in the liver can be innocuous at first, as inflammation sets in, the fat turns to scar tissue, and that can lead to liver failure. © 2015 The New York Times Company
Link ID: 20630 - Posted: 02.28.2015
By Nicholas Weiler The grizzled wolf stalks from her rival’s den, her mouth caked with blood of the pups she has just killed. It’s a brutal form of birth control, but only the pack leader is allowed to keep her young. For her, this is a selfish strategy—only her pups will carry on the future of the pack. But it may also help the group keep its own numbers in check and avoid outstripping its resources. A new survey of mammalian carnivores worldwide proposes that many large predators have the ability to limit their own numbers. The results, though preliminary, could help explain how top predators keep the food chains beneath them in balance. Researchers often assume that predator numbers grow and shrink based on their food supply, says evolutionary biologist Blaire Van Valkenburgh of the University of California, Los Angeles, who was not involved in the new study. But several recent examples, including an analysis of the resurgent wolves of Yellowstone National Park, revealed that some large predators keep their own numbers in check. The new paper is the first to bring all the evidence together, Van Valkenburgh says, and presents a “convincing correlation.” Hunting and habitat loss are killing off big carnivores around the world, just as ecologists are discovering how important they are for keeping ecosystems in balance. Mountain lions sustain woodlands by hunting deer that would otherwise graze the landscape bare. Coyotes protect scrub-dwelling birds by keeping raccoons and foxes in line. Where top carnivores disappear, these smaller predators often explode in numbers, with potentially disastrous consequences for small birds and mammals. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science
By Elizabeth Pennisi Last week, researchers expanded the size of the mouse brain by giving rodents a piece of human DNA. Now another team has topped that feat, pinpointing a human gene that not only grows the mouse brain but also gives it the distinctive folds found in primate brains. The work suggests that scientists are finally beginning to unravel some of the evolutionary steps that boosted the cognitive powers of our species. “This study represents a major milestone in our understanding of the developmental emergence of human uniqueness,” says Victor Borrell Franco, a neurobiologist at the Institute of Neurosciences in Alicante, Spain, who was not involved with the work. The new study began when Wieland Huttner, a developmental neurobiologist at the Max Planck Institute of Molecular Cell Biology and Genetics in Dresden, Germany, and his colleagues started closely examining aborted human fetal tissue and embryonic mice. “We specifically wanted to figure out which genes are active during the development of the cortex, the part of the brain that is greatly expanded in humans and other primates compared to rodents,” says Marta Florio, the Huttner graduate student who carried out the main part of the work. That was harder than it sounded. Building a cortex requires several kinds of starting cells, or stem cells. The stem cells divide and sometimes specialize into other types of “intermediate” stem cells that in turn divide and form the neurons that make up brain tissue. To learn what genes are active in the two species, the team first had to develop a way to separate out the various types of cortical stem cells. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science
by Helen Thomson We meet in a pub, we have a few drinks, some dinner and then you lean in for a kiss. You predict, based on our previous interactions, that the kiss will be reciprocated – rather than landing you with a slap in the face. All our social interactions require us to anticipate another person's undecided intentions and actions. Now, researchers have discovered specific brain cells that allow monkeys to do this. It is likely that the cells do the same job in humans. Keren Haroush and Ziv Williams at Harvard Medical School trained monkeys to play a version of the prisoner's dilemma, a game used to study cooperation. The monkeys sat next to each other and decided whether or not they wanted to cooperate with their companion, by moving a joystick to pick either option. Moving the joystick towards an orange circle meant cooperate, a blue triangle meant "not this time". Neither monkey could see the other's face, or receive any clues about their planned action. If the monkeys cooperated, both received four drops of juice. If one cooperated and the other decided not to, the one who cooperated received one drop, and the other received six drops of juice. If both declined to work together they both received two drops of juice. Once both had made their selections, they could see what the other monkey had chosen and hear the amount of juice their companion was enjoying. © Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.
Link ID: 20627 - Posted: 02.27.2015
By Michael Erard Freckle, a male rhesus monkey, was greeted warmly by his fellow monkeys at his new home in Amherst, Massachusetts, when he arrived in 2000. But he didn’t return the favor: He terrorized his cagemate by stealing his fleece blanket and nabbed each new blanket the researchers added, until he had 10 and his cagemate none. After a few months, Freckle had also acquired a new name: Ivan, short for Ivan the Terrible. Freckle/Ivan, now at Melinda Novak’s primate research lab at the University of Massachusetts, may be unusual in having two names, but all of his neighbors have at least one moniker, Novak says. “You can say, ‘Kayla and Zoe are acting out today,’ and everybody knows who Kayla and Zoe are,” Novak says. “If you say ‘ZA-56 and ZA-65 are acting up today,’ people pause.” Scientists once shied away from naming research animals, and many of the millions of mice and rats used in U.S. research today go nameless, except for special individuals. But a look at many facilities suggests that most of the other 891,161 U.S. research animals have proper names, including nonhuman primates, dogs, pigs, rabbits, cats, and sheep. Rats are Pia, Splinter, Oprah, Persimmon. Monkeys are Nyah, Nadira, Tas, Doyle. One octopus is called Nixon. Breeder pairs of mice are “Tom and Katie,” or “Brad and Angelina.” If you’re a mouse with a penchant for escape, you’ll be Mighty Mouse or Houdini. If you’re a nasty mouse, you’ll be Lucifer or Lucifina. Animals in research are named after shampoos, candy bars, whiskeys, family members, movie stars, and superheroes. They’re named after Russians (Boris, Vladimir, Sergei), colors, the Simpsons, historical figures, and even rival scientists. These unofficial names rarely appear in publications, except sometimes in field studies of primates. But they’re used daily. © 2015 American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Keyword: Animal Rights
Link ID: 20625 - Posted: 02.27.2015
People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder are about twice as likely to die prematurely as those without the disorder, say researchers. Researchers followed 1.92 million Danes, including 32,000 with ADHD, from birth through to 2013. "In this nationwide prospective cohort study with up to 32-year followup, children, adolescents and adults with ADHD had decreased life expectancy and more than double the risk of death compared with people without ADHD," Soren Dalsgaard, from Aarhus University in Denmark, and his co-authors concluded in Wednesday's online issue of Lancet. Actress Kirstie Alley holds a picture of Raymond Perone while testifying in favour of a bill designed to curb the over-prescribing of psychotropic drugs. Danish researchers studying ADHD say medications can reduce symptoms of inattention and impulsivity. (Phil Coale/Associated Press) "People diagnosed with ADHD in adulthood had a greater risk of death than did those diagnosed in childhood and adolescence. This finding could be caused by persistent ADHD being a more severe form of the disorder." Of the 107 individuals with ADHD who died, information on cause of death was available for 79. Of those, 25 died from natural causes and 54 from unnatural causes, including 42 from accidents. Being diagnosed with ADHD along with oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder and substance use disorder also increased the risk of death, the researchers found. Mortality risk was also higher for females than males, which led Dalsgaard to stress the need for early diagnosis, especially in girls and women, and to treat co-existing disorders. Although talk of premature death will worry parents and patients, they can seek solace in knowing the absolute risk of premature death at an individual level is low and can be greatly reduced with treatment, Stephen Faraone, a professor of psychiatry and director of child and adolescent psychiatry research at SUNY Upstate Medical University in New York, said in a journal commentary published with the study. ©2015 CBC/Radio-Canada.