Breaking Science News: Rats display human-like empathy!

[neufer]

Breaking Science News: Rats display human-like empathy

Rats display human-like empathy and will help rodents in distress
The Telegraph: 09 Dec 2011

[b][color=#0000FF]Rats will help out their fellow cage-mates if they are in distress. Photo: ALAMY[/color][/b]

---

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

<<They are a by-word for cunning and disloyalty but now it appears their reputation could be unfounded as rats actually display human-like empathy and will unselfishly go to the aid of a distressed fellow rodent, research has shown.

The results of an experiment in which rats opened a door to free trapped cage-mates astonished scientists.

No reward was needed and not even the lure of chocolate [or donuts ] distracted the rescuing rats.

"This is the first evidence of helping behaviour triggered by empathy in rats," said US study leader Professor Jean Decety. "There are a lot of ideas in the literature showing that empathy is not unique to humans, and it has been well demonstrated in apes, but in rodents it was not very clear. We put together in one series of experiments evidence of helping behaviour based on empathy in rodents, and that's really the first time it's been seen."

The study, conducted at the University of Chicago, involved placing two laboratory rats which normally share a cage in a test arena.

One rat was held in a closed tube with a door that could only be nudged open from the outside. The second was allowed to roam free outside the clear plastic tube, able to see and hear its trapped cage-mate.

Once the free rat learned by trial and error how to free its companion, it did so almost immediately.

No attempt was made to liberate a stuffed toy rat placed in the tube, and empty tubes were left unopened. But rats were freed even when they remained separated from their rescuers, ruling out socialisation as a reward factor.

Most strikingly of all, rats still prioritized their cage-mates when offered the option of "freeing" chocolate chips from a second restrainer tube.

The door to the trapped animal was just as likely to be opened first as the door providing access to the chocolate.

"That was very compelling," said co-author Professor Peggy Mason. "It said to us that essentially helping their cage-mate is on a par with chocolate. He can hog the entire chocolate stash if he wanted to, and he does not. We were shocked."

The research is reported today in the journal Science. Psychology graduate student Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal, who helped devise the experiment, pointed out that the rats were not trained in any way. "These rats are learning because they are motivated by something internal," she said. "We're not showing them how to open the door, they don't get any previous exposure on opening the door, and it's hard to open the door. But they keep trying and trying, and it eventually works. There was no other reason to take this action, except to terminate the distress of the trapped rats."

Commenting on the research, Professor Jaak Panksepp, a US veterinary expert at Washington State University, said: "There is no question that all other animals have emotional feelings. The science is strong for that. And all our strongest basic emotional feelings come from brain networks [almost] all mammals share.">>

[bystander]

Empathic rats spring each other from jail
Discover Blogs | Not Exactly Rocket Science | Ed Yong | 2011 Dec 08

[Ann]

Rats are just like humans, then.

My colleague Arnost has "forbidden me" to use the expression "humans and animals". He insists I must say "humans and the other animals". He also insists that the other mammals are basically just like us, and he says that if you pick a random human, cat, rat or other mammal and test its intelligence, you will find that the human, cat, rat and other mammals possess basically the same kind and level of intelligence, regardless of what species they belong to. Hey, it's Arnost who says it, not me!

But as for empathy, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/scien ... wanted=all wrote:

What is the essence of human nature?
...
The somewhat surprising answer at which some biologists have arrived is that babies are innately sociable and helpful to others. Of course every animal must to some extent be selfish to survive. But the biologists also see in humans a natural willingness to help.

When infants 18 months old see an unrelated adult whose hands are full and who needs assistance opening a door or picking up a dropped clothespin, they will immediately help, Michael Tomasello writes in “Why We Cooperate,” a book published in October. Dr. Tomasello, a developmental psychologist, is co-director of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany.

The helping behavior seems to be innate because it appears so early and before many parents start teaching children the rules of polite behavior.
...
But Dr. Tomasello finds the helping is not enhanced by rewards, suggesting that it is not influenced by training. It seems to occur across cultures that have different timetables for teaching social rules. And helping behavior can even be seen in infant chimpanzees under the right experimental conditions. For all these reasons, Dr. Tomasello concludes that helping is a natural inclination, not something imposed by parents or culture.

Infants will help with information, as well as in practical ways. From the age of 12 months they will point at objects that an adult pretends to have lost. Chimpanzees, by contrast, never point at things for each other, and when they point for people, it seems to be as a command to go fetch something rather than to share information.

Read all about the helpful human babies here, where you can also see some sweet pictures of toddlers helping adults out of the natural goodness of their hearts.

Ann

[Chris Peterson]

Rats are just like humans, then.

That statement is demonstrably false without further qualification!

My colleague Arnost has "forbidden me" to use the expression "humans and animals". He insists I must say "humans and the other animals".

That certainly seems reasonable in most cases.

He also insists that the other mammals are basically just like us, and he says that if you pick a random human, cat, rat or other mammal and test its intelligence, you will find that the human, cat, rat and other mammals possess basically the same kind and level of intelligence, regardless of what species they belong to.

That's an obviously incorrect (and I'd go so far as to say crazy) belief. Believing that all mammals have the same kind of intelligence is an arguable position (although I think most cognitive scientists would disagree). But believing that they all possess the same level of intelligence isn't remotely rational, and clearly stands in opposition to observation.

But as for empathy, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/scien ... wanted=all wrote:

Infants will help with information, as well as in practical ways. From the age of 12 months they will point at objects that an adult pretends to have lost. Chimpanzees, by contrast, never point at things for each other, and when they point for people, it seems to be as a command to go fetch something rather than to share information.

It is a well known curiosity that chimps don't seem to understand or use pointing the same way humans do. Dogs show some evidence of pointing at things, and definitely respond to humans pointing. And it was just announced that ravens utilize pointing in a way very similar to humans.

I'm not surprised that empathy is observed in other animals, even ones with much less developed brains than humans. There seem to be good evolutionary reasons for it to develop as a part of natural behavior, quite removed from what I'd consider "intelligence" to usually mean.

[Ann]

I don't think I did either Arnost or myself justice here, Chris.

Click to view full size image

So, for the record: No, I don't believe that rats are just like humans. I meant that rats as well as humans demonstrate a kind of innate empathy and helpfulness. I think there are other similarities between rats and humans as well, but no, I don't believe that rats are just like humans. (And I hope that my lack of belief in that idea doesn't come as a surprise to you.)

Clearly Arnost doesn't believe that all mammals have the same kind of intelligence. Since Arnost is not stupid, very far from that, there is no way that he can believe that, for example, humans and dogs have the same kind of intelligence. There is no way that we humans can compete with the "olfactory intelligence" of dogs. On the other hand, there are very many things that we can do that dogs just can't.

But it could be that Arnost still believes that, say, the average cow is as intelligent as the average human. I have argued with him about this point many times, and I've never managed to make him back down. Not only that, but I'm still not absolutely sure what exactly he means when he says that all species of mammals have the same average intelligence. If I did understand him, it's far from certain I would agree with him. In fact, I probably would not.

But just as Art has made me realize that it isn't absolutely certain that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works attributed to him (although I still consider it likely that he did), in the same way Arnost has made me see that the idea that "humans" are supremely intelligent compared with all other species is more problematic and ambiguous than it may appear. One thing that Arnost has made me believe is that most human beings are "hangers-on". Most of us don't understand the fantastic technology that we use daily. This technology has been developed by a small group of brilliant individuals. They are the "providers", while most of us, such as myself, can be considered a sort of "parasites". That's a rather harsh word. But there is something strange about the fact that so many of us are so totally dependent on and so confident about using technology that we really don't understand at all. Arnost would have said that the other mammals understand their own "interplay with their own ecological and biological niche" better than we understand our own.

Ann

[Chris Peterson]

So, for the record: No, I don't believe that rats are just like humans.

Glad to hear it! Because if you started telling us about your tail and your whiskers... well, I just don't know how we'd take you seriously. And then, there's the problem that rats don't have blue-responsive cells in their retinas.

But it could be that Arnost still believes that, say, the average cow is as intelligent as the average human. I have argued with him about this point many times, and I've never managed to make him back down. Not only that, but I'm still not absolutely sure what exactly he means when he says that all species of mammals have the same average intelligence. If I did understand him, it's far from certain I would agree with him. In fact, I probably would not.

I don't know what he means, either. Neuroscientists certainly recognize a correlation between the complexity of a brain and complexity of the tasks that an animal can perform. Arguing for the same "average intelligence" stands at odds to that... unless he has a most peculiar definition of intelligence.

[Ann]

The answer he usually gives me (or gave me - he has sort of lost interest in discussing this with me) is, "Well, let each of us out on our own in the wilderness and let's see who will make it, we or the other mammals".

His point seems to be that the other mammals "understand" the wilderness well enough to survive there, and they would understand what to do there. Very many of us humans wouldn't, not if we were completely on our own.

I guess that goes to show that most dogs wouldn't be too good at making it on their own. I have read somewhere that dogs have been so genetically changed by deliberate breeding by us humans that they no longer naturally "belong" to a "pack of dogs". Instead, they naturally "belong" to an individual human being or to a human family.

But, speaking of being well adapted to the "wilderness" as a sign of intelligence - if that is the most important criteria for deciding who is the most intelligent, then I guess the most intelligent species in the biosphere of the Earth would be the bacteria, followed by the insects. They sure know how to make it in the wilderness.

Ann

[Pieces of Meeces]

'The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy'
(Fit the Fourth)
by Douglas Adams


NARRATOR:
And when Arthur Dent encounters Slartibartfast, the Magrathean coastline designer who won an award for his work on Norway, and learns that the whole history of mankind was run for the benefit of a few white mice anyway, surprise is no longer adequate and he is forced to resort to astonishment.

Scene 1. Int. Slartibartfast’s Office. Magrathea

ARTHUR:
Mice? What do you mean mice? I think we must be talking at cross purposes. Mice to me mean the little white furry things with the cheese fixation and women standing screaming on tables in early Sixties sitcoms.

SLARTIBARTFAST:
Earthman, it is sometimes hard to follow your mode of speech. Remember I have been asleep inside this planet of Magrathea for five-million years and know little of these early Sixties sitcoms of which you speak. These creatures you call mice you see are not quite as they appear, they are merely the protrusions into our dimension of vast, hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings. The business with the cheese and squeaking is just a front.

ARTHUR:
A front?

SLARTIBARTFAST:
Oh yes, you see the mice set up the whole Earth business, as an epic experiment in behavioural psychology; a ten-million year program -

ARTHUR:
No, look, you’ve got it the wrong way round. It was us. We used to do the experiments on them.

SLARTIBARTFAST:
A ten-million year program in which your planet Earth and its people formed the matrix of an organic computer. I gather that the mice did arrange for you humans to conduct some primitively staged experiments on them just to check how much you’d really learned, to give you the odd prod in the right direction, you know the sort of thing: suddenly running down the maze the wrong way; eating the wrong bit of cheese; or suddenly dropping dead of myxomatosis.

[orin stepanek]

I guess that goes to show that most dogs wouldn't be too good at making it on their own. I have read somewhere that dogs have been so genetically changed by deliberate breeding by us humans that they no longer naturally "belong" to a "pack of dogs". Instead, they naturally "belong" to an individual human being or to a human family.


Ann

Ann; man and dog go back a long long way! http://christophreilly.hubpages.com/hub ... panionship

[geckzilla]

There was (is?) an interesting experiment involving the domestication of Siberian foxes in Russia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

It is interesting that selectively breeding only the least afraid foxes resulted not only in foxes which were not afraid of humans but also morphological differences and other dog-like traits. Reading about the experiment it's easy to draw parallels in the way early dog human relationships must have begun and how dogs were eventually domesticated by some lucky people who happened to find a few less fearful wolves. Genetics play a big role so it's not as simple as rearing them from pups as some people may think. A wild wolf pup will grow up into a wild wolf. That being said, I also think that the reverse could happen among domesticated dogs. Of course, certain breeds have legs so short they are physically incapable of procreating without human assistance. Those would, of course, be doomed.

[Flase]

I would say it's clear that rats are much nicer than people; Their relationships are more genuine. They don't stab each other in the back with a smile to rob each other of a living. Also no rat has ever tortured a man in a cage, let alone their own kind the way people do (only when trapped in artificial cages do rats kill each other). What activities of rats compare with the blood-soaked human history of perpetual wars?

Actually I am unfair. I'm sure that rats would do the same things if they reached the stage of development where a few could wield power over many...