Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

The difference between pointing by the Great Ape Trust bonobos - the only ones in the world with receptive competence for spoken English - and other captive apes that make hand gestures is explained by the culture in which they were reared, according to the paper's authors: Janni Pedersen, an Iowa State University Ph.D. candidate conducting research for her dissertation at Great Ape Trust; Pär Segerdahl, a scientist from Sweden who has published several philosophical inquires into language; and William M. Fields, an ethnographer investigating language, culture and tools in non-human primates. Fields also is Great Ape Trust's director of scientific research. Because Kanzi, Panbanisha and Nyota were raised in a culture where pointing has a purpose - The Trust's hallmark Pan/Homo environment, where infant bonobos are reared with both bonobo (Pan paniscus) and human (Homo sapiens) influences - their pointing is as scientifically meaningful as their understanding of spoken English, Fields said. The pointing study supports and builds on previous research on the effect of rearing culture on cognitive capabilities, including the 40-year research corpus of Dr. Duane Rumbaugh, Dr. Sue Savage-Rumbaugh and Fields, which is the foundation of the scientific inquiry at Great Ape Trust. Those studies included the breakthrough finding that Kanzi and other bonobos with receptive competence for spoken English acquired language as human children do - by being exposed to it since infancy. The bonobos adopted finger-pointing behavior for the same reasons, because they were reared in a culture where pointing has meaning.

During evolution, living species have adapted to environmental constraints according to the mechanism of natural selection; when a mutation that aids the survival (and reproduction) of an individual appears in the genome, it then spreads throughout the rest of the species until, after several hundreds or even thousands of generations, it is carried by all individuals. But does this selection, which occurs on a specific gene in the genome of a species, also occur on the same gene in neighboring species? On which set of genes has natural selection acted specifically in each species? Researchers in the Dynamique et Organisation des Génomes team at the Institut de Biologie of the Ecole Normale Supérieure (CNRS/ENS/INSERM) have studied the genome of humans and three other primate species (chimpanzee, orangutan and macaque) using bioinformatics tools. Their work consisted in comparing the entire genomes of each species in order to identify the genes having undergone selection during the past 200,000 years. The result was that a few hundred genes have recently undergone selection in each of these species. These include around 100 genes detected in man that are shared by two or three other species, which is twice as many as might be anticipated as a random phenomenon. Thus a not inconsiderable proportion of the genes involved in human adaptation are also present in the chimpanzee, orangutan or macaque, and sometimes in several species at the same time. Natural selection acts not only by distancing different species from each other when new traits appear. But by acting on the same gene, it can also give rise to the same trait in species that have already diverged, but still have a relatively similar genome. This study thus provides a clearer understanding of the group of genes that are specifically implicated in human evolution (during the past 200,000 years), as it allows the identification of those genes which did not undergo selection in another primate line. An example that has been confirmed by this study is the well-known case of the lactase gene that can metabolize lactose during adulthood (a clear advantage with the development of agriculture and animal husbandry). The researchers have also identified a group of genes involved in some neurological functions and in the development of muscles and skeleton.

In his new book, "The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence" (Harvard University Press), Kaye focuses on the intersection of science and law, and emphasizes that DNA evidence is merely information. "There's a popular perception that with DNA, you get results," Kaye said. "You're either guilty or innocent, and the DNA speaks the truth. that goes too far. DNA is a tool. Perhaps in many cases it's open and shut, in other cases it's not. There's ambiguity."

One of the book's key themes is that using science in court is hard to do right. "It requires lawyers and judges to understand a lot about the science," Kaye noted. "They don't have to be scientists or technicians, but they do have to know enough to understand what's going on and whether the statements that experts are making are well-founded. The lawyers need to be able to translate that information into a form that a judge or a jury can understand." Kaye also believes that lawyers need to better understand statistics and probability, an area that has traditionally been neglected in law school curricula. His book attempts to close this gap in understanding with several sections on genetic science and probability. The book also contends that scientists, too, have contributed to the false sense of certainty, when they are so often led by either side of one particular case to take an extreme position. Scientists need to approach their role as experts less as partisans and more as defenders of truth. Aiming to be a definitive history of the use of DNA evidence, "The Double Helix and the Law of Evidence" chronicles precedent-setting criminal trials, battles among factions of the scientific community and a multitude of issues with the use of probability and statistics related to DNA. From the Simpson trial to the search for the last Russian Tsar, Kaye tells the story of how DNA science has impacted society. He delves into the history of the application of DNA science and probability within the legal system and depicts its advances and setbacks.