Drunk fish?

In college I once got a spider drunk. I directed it to a drop of spilled beer. It drank the beer for some time, then turned away. I directed it back to the drop and it drank a little more then turned away again. When I directed it back again, it saw the drop of beer, and just sat there for the rest of the evening, not moving.

It might be interesting to study the ability of college students at various levels of inebriation to observe and record the behaviors of zebra fish.

(And you might want to note that many college professors have been observed to be chronically intolerant of spellings like "cronic" and "tollerace.")

Good luck with the experiment. I got my first hangover after a nine day bender, end of my second year. Good times. Good luck with 14 days!

Any comment for your IACUC on the proposed experiment?

Is this really an appropriately challenging experiment for college-level students?

To be honest- it seems a bit like stoner science to me. "Hey- let's see what happens if we like get fish drunk. Dude! it'll be cool!"

I think you need to give a bit more thought to what you're doing and why. I don't even know what hypothesis you're testing.

Presumably, the fish will lose motor control and will die for high enough levels of intoxicant. So what? What exactly are you going to learn from this experiment?

Back in college, (Funny how these type of stories happen there.) we spiked my roommate's cat's water dish with vodka. The cat drank it and became drunk, i.e. wobbly, misjudge leaps and other forms of uncatlike clumsiness. The cat did not enjoy being drunk. Afterwards, when we spiked his waterbowl, he would not drink from it.

This is really too much, beyond the limit. I have been keeping Zebra-fish for well over thirty years, and I have never heard, as the sun passed o'er the yardarm any call for cocktails from my aquaria. Zebrafish are tee-totalers,a school of them is nature's Temperance Union and I suggest you leave them to their lemon-squash and orange juice, combined with a good brand of flake food. Avoid over-feeding and give partial water changes bi-weekly.

They've done this with bees.

Speaking of staggering cats, I have a cat who enjoys, just loves, being "spun" on the waxed kitchen floor, while stretched out on his side. You can spin him so fast and long (he loves it) he actually becomes quite dizzy, weaving and lurching as he regains his equilibrium. If you will forgo subjecting those poor Zebra-fish to a regimen of "wine and cheap perfume" (as Journey has it) you can come over and spin MacHeath, my cat. Deal?
Besides, take it from me, those Zebra-fish will end up with shattered livers, and broken hearts.

This experiment seems pointless and cruel. Join a frat if you want to haze lower lifeforms...

In all honesty, alcohol isn't that cool. A sometimes tasty social lubricant, sure, but that's not necessarily the best basis for choosing a subject.

Is there science behind your experiment or is it a joke? (Perhaps this post is joke and it's on me)

A plain reading of your experiment shows it to be nothing more than a frat boy prank. No doubt you know plenty of scientists who can save you the time and trouble.

There are many good reasons to destroy life. Cheap laughs is not one of them.

Since this is a biology class, shouldn't the purpose of the experiment be to determine the efficacy of getting the subject drunk and then trying to mate with it? One would also think this would be of more immediate import to college students.

This experiment seems pointless and cruel. Join a frat if you want to haze lower lifeforms...

Nicely said, Dave.
I'd rather you give yourself alcohol poisoning and die than abuse some poor creature for shits and giggles in your faux-educational experiment.

In my undergrad animal behavior class I made male hissing cockroaches fight. Did I learn anything groundbreaking about Madagascar hissing cockroaches? No. But I did learn the fundamental skills necessary to begin my own experiments in grad school. Undergrads do relatively pointless experiments in their classes all the time. The purpose of these experiments is to get them to understand how to develop, implement, and analyze a study.

I'd rather you give yourself alcohol poisoning and die than abuse some poor creature for shits and giggles in your faux-educational experiment.

Wow. Way to pile on some poor kid who is just doing a class assignment. Totally uncalled for.

Undergrads do relatively pointless experiments in their classes all the time.

Well said. This isn't graduate research these students are doing, after all - there's no need (or, I would think, expectation) to produce groundbreaking results. Undergrad labs are about learning the methods that will be used to do more challenging experiments in grad school or, should they be so unlucky, the real world.

Back home in Auckland, New Zealand there is a forest bird called a Tui (Too ee), aka a Parson Bird. Glossy black with a tuft of white feathers just under the chin and a long curved beak. They are fond of drinking nectar from flax flowers (hence that long curved beak). Now in high summer it is hot and humid in Auckland and sugary liquid sitting around uncovered tends to ferment. This means you get drunk Tuis falling of power lines, flying into windows or just walking or flying drunk in charge of a body. It can be most amusing. So yes, non human animals can naturally get drunk.

Free the Zebra Fish [Insert no. of zebra fish in PZ's lab tank here]!

This means you get drunk Tuis falling of power lines, flying into windows or just walking or flying drunk in charge of a body. It can be most amusing.

Here's video of a similar phenomenon: various animals eating overripe fruit and getting a little tipsy. I can't imagine how many rotting pieces of fruit that elephant had to eat to get staggering drunk.

Peter - you've just made me incredibly homesick! I grew up in Henderson (and later Titirangi).

The Tui has an incredible song - apparently it has a pretty spiffy set of vocal machinery too. Not only that, but it's an incredible mimic.

Mimicry aside, the song was hautingly beautiful, especially seen heard through mental ears made sentimental by long absence.

Anyone know of decent Tui recordings on the web?

On the off chance that someone hasn't seen it yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHzdsFiBbFc

I did this with goldfish and caffiene...for my science project in the 6th grade. Didn't even get an honorable mention. Yawn.

Now, see, I think this could be an genuinely interesting experiment. The kid said s/he was going to be testing the tolerance of zebrafish, with chronic exposure at different levels. Does anybody know what kind of tolerance fish might develop over time to ethanol, or what behaviors will be observably altered? I don't. But fish brains are much less vascularized than mammals', with much lower neuron density. There's every reason to think that perfusion of ethanol across the brain is different in fish than in mammals, and thus that the development of ethanol tolerance is different. So zip it, haters.

If you want a tip for maybe being able to draw some interesting conclusions, bone up on what parts of people brains are affected by ethanol intoxication, and when, and compare them to the parts that fish got, and the parts that fish ain't got. If you want a quantifiable behavior that would reflect intoxication effects on the cerebellum, you could probably set up an optomotor reflex rig in lab without too much trouble.

Having said all that, this:
Join a frat if you want to haze lower lifeforms...
was pretty funny.

And the spider video was great.

on the effects of ethanol on fish...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/gq2n8v61l3r08330/

From Ichthyic's link:
Fish were exposed to water and to ethanol or bourbon solutions of the same ethanol concentration

Bourbon, that's awesome. I bet there was a lot more fighting and undignified crying episodes among the bourbon fish.

Alright, so the idea is to have a pointless experiment to teach procedure? I can live with that.

How about picking a pointless experiment that doesn't harm any animals, then?

This is the sort of shit that really ticks off animal activists, you know? I mean, scientists are quick to point out the handful of experiments where something living genuinely needs to be experimented on, and that might be fine... but why hold on to crap like this?

I'm serious PZ-- any chance of nixing this experiment?

lol @ crack spider video.

Concerning the original post, I disagree with everyone who is against the experimental set-up. It has great potential depending on how much preliminary research is done. That is, if the student creates the proper control group and focuses on a particular type of tolerance (acute, environmental, functional, learned, or metabolic). I recommend the student looks into the various literature on rats and mice concerning alcohol consumption (there's plenty). S/he may get some insight from them.

This is a student who can apparently not spell either 'tolerance' or 'chronic'. And PZ is going to let him kill some zebrafish? No, no, no. Not cool. Fish do not exist to be tormented in some stupid undergrad's experiment that he can't even spell any of the keywords of.

for the whiners...

we used to use phenoxyethanol to anesthetize fish all the time for minor surgical procedures.

never had any indication of long term harm. The fish behaved the same, bred normally, etc.

I suggest those complaining think twice about the battles they choose to fight.

as to the student, I rather think the knee-jerk (emphasize JERK) response is based on "poor framing" on your part.

:P

seriously, though, it's always wise when presenting any proposal for research on animals to immediately provide what the expected benefits of the research will be.

you'll need to get used to this, as many universities have animal use protocols that will require it.

Moreover, it's an excellent idea for any scientist to establish not only what the expected benefits of a particular research project might be, but to establish their own knowledge of the history of research in the area being considered, and to clearly state why this particular effort is needed in order to further the larger body of knowledge in the field.

Hell, you pretty much have to do exactly that for every grant application you will ever write.

That said, obviously this is just a training exercise, but you would still be well advised to do a literature review on the subject at hand to familiarize yourself with the work that has been done before on the subject, and why.

Just to be clear, this is one reason I posted the link to the 30 year old paper.

the other was just to piss off the whiners who think research on ethanol on fish behavior is unpublishable nonsense that doesn't contribute in the slightest to our understanding.

1974, Isla Vista (by UC Santa Barbara), 3 bedroom duplex, 5 roommates. Like the old song, "Those were the days my friend".
We had an adult stray black/white shorthair cat move in on us. This cat was a garbage disposal. He would eat any and all table scraps. He was also an adult Tom. His neck was bigger than his head. He was one tough buzzard of a cat. One of my roommates decided to blow marijuana smoke in his face. The cat hissed, scratched him, and ran out the door. I thought goodbye cat. He was kind of sweet. And he always helped in cleaning the plates.
The cat came back, the very same day (sorry). Twenty minutes or so later he sauntered back in, jumped up on a chair, and lay motionless with his head hanging over the side for a couple of hours. Not really sleeping, just staring off into space. After that, occasionally, if someone lit up a joint the cat would go up to whoever was holding it and sniff the smoke. I don't know if cats have an affinity for Cannabis, but this one sure did.
Personally, I would have never done this to a cat, but this one obviously enjoyed the effect.

Nice name-calling Ichthyic! Disagreeing is not 'whining'.

The difference between the study you linked to and the study suggested by PZ's student is that the former appears to have had a well-defined purpose. This one (at present) does not.

I can't imagine how many rotting pieces of fruit that elephant had to eat to get staggering drunk.

It isn't drunk. It's poisoned by insect larvae that live in the fruits.

On another note, phenoxyethanol isn't ethanol!

Harm animals? Torment fish? By exposing them to a non-lethal ethanol solution? Good grief.

When I was in graduate school, I TA'd a lab course that involved demonstration survival surgeries on two anaesthetized mice. Two mice. Yet every year when the protocol came up for review, the instructor would get pressure from the IACUC committee to find a zero-mouse demonstration to do instead. And this amazed me - this was an upper level class at an elite university, to which undergraduates were recruited with the understanding that they were to go out and become the doctors, scientists, etc. that would lead their fields. My question was, if you're teaching life science, and it's not okay to kill two mice for these students, then when does it become okay? Only when they're in med school? Only once they have their own lab directing original research? How did the balance of priorities between the good of mice and humans come to fall there?

If you're going to teach life science, you're going to need some life. And often you'll have to do things that end that life. Teaching college students (who are, even as undergraduates, among the planet's most educated elite) how life works is way, way, way more important that the individual lives of some zebrafish. And in the long run, it'll be more important to zebrafish as a species, too.

@ 31

"I suggest those complaining think twice about the battles they choose to fight."

Why, because we should encourage undergrads to do poorly thought out experiments that risk harming living things? Can you say "ethics"?

Colin, Kia Ora mate. I was in Titirangi, small world. You ask and I am sure I have come across one, here is one to be getting on with: http://www.nzbirds.com/birds/sound/tui2.wav

Though I'm sure I used to have a link to a better one. I'll keep looking. That site has a few though.

Disagreeing is not 'whining'.

no, it's not, but trying to say what you were doing isn't whining is something I would disagree with.

Why, because we should encourage undergrads to do poorly thought out experiments that risk harming living things?

Can you say, "knowing what you're even talking about?"

What aspects of this experiment are poorly thought out?
What is the degree and nature of harm expected to befall the zebrafish in this experiment?
You can't possibly have the information necessary to answer these questions, so what the hell?

Why, because we should encourage undergrads to do poorly thought out experiments that risk harming living things? Can you say "ethics"?

one, you don't have enough evidence from this internet post to figure out if the experiment is really poorly thought out or not.

two, who are you to decide whether the value of any specific study merits a discussion of "ethics"?

have you done research on animals yourself?

three, did you note in my response that not only did I emphasize a literature review on the subject, but also stressed a better presentation of the value of the proposed research?

these are the important things to ask of a student. The idea of asking his prof. to quash the entire project because of a personal perception of " poorly thought out experiments" is what should be quashed here.

seriously, it's no better logic than a creationist saying that research regarding evolution is a waste of time, and that any professors encouraging students to do research in evolution should instead ask the students to stop.

I mean, it's the same logic if you decide your own personal ethics trump any value the research might have.

this is why I said those who are whining about this might think twice about the battles they pick. You certainly aren't doing this student any favors.

for you scoffers I offer this link to a NIH award that may give you an inkling as to whether this is a stupid project or not.

"Abstract: DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Alcohol abuse is one of the most devastating and costly diseases society has to face. Its mechanisms are not well understood and effective treatment is lacking. One way to study this complex disease is with the use of model organisms. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) may be a useful model system with which the mechanisms of acute and chronic effects of alcohol can be investigated. Here new behavioral test paradigms will be developed for the quantification of alcohol effects on novelty induced, agonistic, social, and predator elicited behaviors. The tests are hoped to tap into diverse functions of the brain that may be modified by alcohol. The tests may enable us to detect a range of chemical mutagen induced genetic changes, a forward genetic approach. Zebrafish is particularly appropriate as a model organism for our purpose. First, it can be kept, bred, and tested in large numbers in the laboratory (small size, large number of offspring per spawning, ease of controlling environmental factors). Second, alcohol delivery is simple (fish absorb this substance through their gills and skin). Third, a large amount of genetic information and sophisticated genetic tools are available allowing the generation of mutations and identification of novel genes. And fourth, the genes discovered show high homology to human. Despite these advantages, however, phenotypical screening methods especially for behavior of zebrafish are often lacking. Importantly, we argue that the foundation of a successful forward genetic study lies in the development of appropriate phenotypical test paradigms. Furthermore, perhaps one of the best and simplest ways to test functional changes in the brain is behavioral analysis. Thus, the primary goal of this proposal is first to develop novel behavioral paradigms that detect alcohol induced changes, and second, to technically and procedurally refine these paradigms for high throughput screening of mutants. Another goal of this proposal is to generate and identify the first mutants with the use of the newly developed behavioral screens and then to establish stable mutant zebrafish lines. Ultimately, i.e. after the tenure of the proposal, the proposed studies will lead to the identification of novel genes relevant for alcohol related behaviors in zebrafish, which is hoped will facilitate the unraveling of the mechanisms of acute and chronic alcohol effects in human. "

Thanks Drugmonkey. That completely answers any doubts I had about the project. The original poster should have linked to this at the beginning and saved us some time.

Ichthyic-- Sounds to me like you want this experiment both ways. So far, I've heard it called a pointless exercise that is intended to simply build procedural knowledge, and also seen it compared to a NIH award-winning study.

I'll freely admit that I don't know all there is to know about this particular study, but let's refresh what we DO know:

1) The student originally considered using cocaine or weed on the fish. The sophomoric element here pretty much smacks you in the face.

2) The study has apparently been done before, re: comment #41.

3) Animals will be harmed; with the eventual outcome possibly being duplication of an existing experiment, or simply demonstrating lab procedure.

Due to these three things, I'm having a hard time figuring out what more I need to know to feel okay about this experiment. Again, I'd like to call on PZ to put a stop to it.

I'm not so ignorant as to accept the straw-man argument that I'm against ALL animal experiments, I've stated quite the opposite more than once in numerous threads.

1974, Isla Vista (by UC Santa Barbara), 3 bedroom duplex, 5 roommates. Like the old song, "Those were the days my friend".

ah, a fellow Gaucho alumnus. Those were the days, indeed.

graduated far later than you did (87), but likely share similar stories of the fabled Isla Vista.

great school.

So far, I've heard it called a pointless exercise that is intended to simply build procedural knowledge, and also seen it compared to a NIH award-winning study.

who called it a pointless exercise again?

not me.

I recall using the words "training exercise", which does not in any way imply it to be pointless.

what's pointless is your inane ramblings on the subject.

2) The study has apparently been done before, re: comment #41.

so of course, replication is entirely pointless, right?

phht.

Teaching college students (who are, even as undergraduates, among the planet's most educated elite) how life works is way, way, way more important that the individual lives of some zebrafish.

That's a valuable lesson for those Zebra Fish to learn, too.

Those who believe replication is pointless should recall the history of the Millikan Oil-Drop experiment, and the charge of the electron.

Ichthyic--

I notice, though, that you haven't addressed any of my points-- outside of your eloquent "phht" in regards to this undergrad "training exercise" duplicating an existing experiment.

Animals will be harmed... in training. Unless this student is training for a job as undersea barkeep, I can't imagine a less harmful experiment could be substituted with the adequate training requirements that doesn't hurt some living creatures.

I notice, though, that you haven't addressed any of my points-

because you haven't made any worth addressing.

why don't you start all over again by saying something that makes sense?

I can't imagine

to paraphrase:

that, is why you fail.

your ignorance of how science education works, and the value of repeating experiments, let alone of what exactly this particular student plans to do and why doesn't make me feel all that out of line when I call you a whiner.

seriously, unless you can come up with something that actually makes sense based on what the student posted, you're simply making yourself look like an idiot.

There is simply not enough there to warrant the conclusions you are jumping to (why I mentioned the use of phenoxyethanol as an anesthetic, for example), let alone the hysterical attempt to ask the student's prof to actually force a withdrawal before the student even posts an actual idea for the experiment to begin with!

now, kindly take your foot out of your mouth before you start again.

49: I'm having a hard time understanding what your objection is. So let me go back to basic questions.

1) What is the harm that you perceive being done to the fish: the exposure to ethanol, or that they will presumably be euthanized after the experiment?
2) Is it your position that harm to animals in a scientific context is only justified by experiments meant to generate original data?
3) Does the animal's inferred capacity to suffer matter? Would you feel differently if it were fruitflies or leeches being intoxicated?

Would you feel differently if it were fruitflies or leeches being intoxicated?

..or spiders?

:p

damn, that was a funny vid.

I love eat fish - big ones, but killing them is not nice, so I get them drunk. I pour a little neat rum in the gills and mouths, and they are either dead or comatose in seconds. There are three pigs out in the yard growing for another month or so. They will be fed two thirds of a quart of vodka each, after which they won't know what is going on. If you have to kill me, do the same.
So Harderkid, what does the literature to date say on this subject, what are you going to be looking for? Will you be doing anything other than behavioural analysis? Do you have any hypothesis, and what are they based on?

Icthycic and Drugmonkey: First of all- sorry but I got confused. The link Drugmonkey posted was to a separate project, not the one being discussed.

It seems to me that what Drugmonkey posted differs from the original post in that Drugmonkey's linked proposal demonstrates a fairly clear purpose (though it seems to be written in scientese).

I still don't get what the purpose is in harderkid's expt. I can't think of anything useful they can conclude (as it stands). However, that may be because of lack of information (but that's the failing of harderkid to provide this).

I'm not overly concerned about the ethical component to this study. However, let's be clear. This study involves poisoning the Zebra fish in order to measure the effects of a toxin. I'd be uneasy to see the same study performed on more complex animals without a better thought out justification.

My main gripe is that as it stands- it's just not a very interesting experiment, though I'm not a biologist and can't say I've got any expertise in the field.

I would like to see PZ's students put a little more thought into what they're trying to achieve. I'm also interested in seeing the results when they're written up.

-----------------------------
I don't think I'm being too critical. The purpose of Blog posts is in part to discuss things in an open manner. If PZ doesn't think his students can handle some (pretty mild) criticism then I don't really think he should be letting them blog in front of 1000s.

Ichthyic--

First off, you're being jerky. Second... while I'm certainly no scientist, I do understand that in many cases, duplicating an experiment could be beneficial. However, as you mentioned earlier, there was an award-winning study already done (and surely, more in-depth than this student could carry out, yes?) and the purpose of this experiment seems to be to teach some sort of lab procedure. What you haven't done is show me how this couldn't be accomplished without causing harm to some animal.

Frankly, I couldn't care less if it was a human, a fruitfly, or a cute baby panda if the experiment is truly necessary-- but so far, this seems to be anything but the case. The experiment seems to have been chosen almost purely out of wanting to work with an intoxicant, when other ideas appear to have been an option. Why don't you lay off the lame Yoda quotes, and show me why ONLY this experiment will suffice, then I'll lay off. Otherwise, I intend to carry on.

Icthycic: I must agree with DaveX's opinion of you. You really can't expect to get very far by calling other people whiners and claiming they're ignorant.

I actually agree with a lot of your points, but you're being so obnoxious that it's hard to enter into any dialogue.

Also- it's really quite hard to defend yourself against the whining charge- since any defense can also be labeled as further whining. It really comes down to name-calling and I find it all a bit beneath us.

Ichthyic responds to the charge that he/she failed to address the arguments made by simply claiming (without argument of course) that there were arguments "worth addressing". Classic.

This is the clear sign of someone whose only purpose in a debate is to stroke his own ego by "winning" it. If his purpose were really to convince anyone of anything, he would certainly take the time to show us what was so terribly wrong with the arguments.

Anyway, I'm with DaveX: unless this student can give some reason to believe that something slightly useful has a high chance, or something highly useful has a slight chance of coming out of this experiment, OR that no harm will come to the fish, then PZ should not allow it. The point I'm making here is really quite trivial. It's simply based on the premise that harming fish should be avoided if there is no significant cost to doing so.

The nonsense about "it's a training exercise" is of course just that: nonsense. As DaveX has pointed out, THAT goal could equally be achieved by an experiment that had NO risk of harming animals.

The nonsense about the value of "repeating an experiment" is of course also just that: nonsense. Imagine the following on a grant proposal: "this experiment will be carried-out because it has been carried out before." No, mere repetition is of course no reason to carry-out an experiment. There needs to be some REASON to repeat the experiment. Were previous results inconclusive? Limited? Prone to error? The question the student needs to be able to answer is this: what hypothesis will this experiment test that has not been sufficiently confirmed by previous experiments of this sort?

Oops! That should be: "...by simply claiming (without argument of course) that there were NO arguments "worth addressing".

There's nothing worse than forgetting a negation.

I actually agree with a lot of your points, but you're being so obnoxious that it's hard to enter into any dialogue.

grow up, then.

First off, you're being jerky.

damn straight, I'm a complete asshole to idiots that go so far as to ask a prof to pull the plug on a student project for no reason.

It's not appropriate for you to do so, even if it WAS a badly designed project, which there is simply no way to tell from a one paragraph blog post.

Thanks for backing me up a bit, guys-- I'm not exactly the animal-loving freak I may seem... I just don't see the sense in wastefulness or in cruelty without reason.

Well, you've certainly convinced me, Ichthyic!

Tell you what-- why don't you take your amazing new debate skills on the road. Just call the creationists names until they see your point of view. You can it's working when you feel it tingle!

while I'm certainly no scientist, I do understand that in many cases, duplicating an experiment could be beneficial.

when you qualify it with "could be", you clearly DON'T understand the value of replicating experiments.

perhaps you might have seen that little article in Seed a while back decrying the fact that so few experiments in medical science are actually replicated? The reason we like to replicate experiments ALWAYS, is because it is the only real way to judge the veracity of the experimental methods and results obtained in any given bit of research. If the same experiment is repeated and finds entirely different results, there are a myriad of things that could lead from that, aside from questioning the methods or results from the original work.

perhaps you have read about or heard about the more recent replication of Kettlewell's original study on the evolution of melanin in moths? if not, you might try scoping for it on PT, where it was discussed in depth. I think if you search on the phrase: We Told You So, you will actually find it (no joke).

I guess, by your logic, nobody should have bothered to even try replicating that experiment, since it by definition "a textbook case" to begin with.

I still don't get what the purpose is in harderkid's expt.

It's not possible as it is stated, that's the point. He hasn't defined the particulars at all, not even a hypothesis yet.

Which is exactly why it's completely senseless and destructive to jump to the conclusion "it needs to be stopped!!!"

It's just that kind of knee-jerk reaction that is so common to creationists as well.

Otherwise, I intend to carry on.

with what?

a crusade against a poorly written blog post where the student was intentionally trying to be humorous?

sorry, but you and those supporting you really are idiots.

there's just no getting around it.

I haven't read these articles that you mentioned, but I'll take your word on it. I mean, duh-- checking your work is a good thing. However, I also remember reading an article just the other day (in WIRED, I believe) about the amount of duplication and re-duplication that is done simply because scientists have a tendency to bury the less-fascinating studies. It's been a long time since I've had to use any sort of academic journal database, but I'm curious how many times an experiment like this have been carried out. Does anyone care to assist me? I'm afraid I have no idea where to begin searching...

Dear Troll: This is getting really boring. You're conflating several different people and opinions in your criticisms in an attempt to muddy the waters.

You're now even suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is akin to a creationist.

I'm going to stop here, because it's really no fun trying to enter into a dialogue with someone who's idea of witty repartee is to tell me to 'grow up'.

This is the clear sign of someone whose only purpose in a debate is to stroke his own ego by "winning" it. If his purpose were really to convince anyone of anything, he would certainly take the time to show us what was so terribly wrong with the arguments.

more idiocy.

I already did, in the only sensible reply to the student himself, where I suggested he do some background research on the subject. (#31)

the only merit in any of the criticisms here is that the student didn't even begin to spell out what type of experiment he had in mind, exactly, and didn't bother to clarify what hypothesis he hoped to test. However, I nor anybody here, has even the slightest clue if that was even a requirement of PZ having his students post here to begin with.

the rest is just hysterical jumping to conclusions about the nature of an experiment that hasn't even been defined yet.

..to the point where some of you idiots are already calling for his prof to pull it!

sorry, but that's just idiotic, it's the only word that comes close to describing the behavior DaveX and his "supporters" have exhibited here.

as to the general subject of animal research and training, say the student DID want to duplicate something similar to the research contained in the paper I posted a link to.

How do you suppose he would accomplish that without the use of animals?

Jeebus, it's like you people are refusing to use your brains.

Tell you what-- why don't you take your amazing new debate skills on the road. Just call the creationists names until they see your point of view. You can it's working when you feel it tingle!

funny thing, bright boy, but ridicule does wonders on the debate trail.

also, in case you hadn't noticed (you haven't, trust me), debating a creationist is never for the sake of converting the creationist.

I have no intentions of converting the ignorant to my point of view. it would simply take too long in a blog post.

I prefer to make fun of them instead, but only if they choose to act on their ignorance instead of fixing it.

I'm sure that some of the entries I'm seeing aren't quite the same thing, but even googling Zebrafish and alcohol seems to bring up a large amount of studies. Hell, there's even YouTube video of effects of alcohol on developing zebrafish.

There appear to be studies with drunken zebrafish navigating mazes, focusing on their visual acuity while intoxicated, on the development of the fish themselves, numerous reports with useful data about FAS, zebrafish memory, sleep patterns, tendency of brain tissues to regenerate... even the cocaine was listed in numerous reports. This area of research seems pretty saturated.... I don't think this is a situation where some undergrad is duplicating a one-off experiment and going to be coming up with any earthshaking results, sorry.

The nonsense about the value of "repeating an experiment" is of course also just that: nonsense. Imagine the following on a grant proposal: "this experiment will be carried-out because it has been carried out before."

actually, there are grants for just that. suggest you actually take a gander at some of the grant agencies sometime there, genius. there should, in fact, be even more money available to repeat experiments. The whole definition of a good study is that it IS repeatable. That we don't often test that is NOT a good thing, and is the only value I saw in the analysis of the huge body of medical research that was discussed on Seed a few months back. There indeed has been far too little replication.

nonsense it is not, if you understood the slightest thing about how science works.

seriously, about the accusations of "winning"...

I couldn't give a shit about what the ignorant think of what I say, but when you decide to "share" your viewpoint as if you knew the slightest thing about how science actually works, I'm gonna jump down your throat, if for no other reason that to make it clear that this kind of idiocy deserves to be slapped upside the head.

You're now even suggesting that anyone who disagrees with you is akin to a creationist.

having debated many, I'd say it's a fair conclusion that you react in a similar fashion:

hysterics in the face of no evidence to support your contentions.

troll

look up the definition of what an internet troll is sometime, dimwit.

There appear to be studies with drunken zebrafish navigating mazes, focusing on their visual acuity while intoxicated, on the development of the fish themselves, numerous reports with useful data about FAS, zebrafish memory, sleep patterns, tendency of brain tissues to regenerate... even the cocaine was listed in numerous reports.

any one of which would be worthy for a budding scientist to attempt to replicate, or even try to. as an undergrad in a small college, obviously the simplest one would be the best.

instead of asking PZ to nix a non existent experiment, why don't you glance through some of the references you dug up to find one that might actually be simple and interesting for an undergrad to try and learn from, eh?

this is how one learns to be a scientist, which of course you don't know.

Apparently, being jerky is the only way to get anyone to respond to you. I tried polite, and I get nothing.

My main gripe is that as it stands- it's just not a very interesting experiment, though I'm not a biologist and can't say I've got any expertise in the field... and you also don't even know what the experiment actually is. So why, then, are you bitching about the experiment here in the comments, again?

the purpose of this experiment seems to be to teach some sort of lab procedure. I'd bet that lab procedure is *how to do experiments that involve live animals*. The critics here who are sniffishly demanding justification for this experiment (without knowing what the experiment is! that's the part I can't believe!) don't seem like they'd be prepared to do any science education themselves. You can't study biology without involving living things. Bringing living things into the laboratory often -- well, always, actually -- results in dead things. That's reality. Medical students used to learn anatomy by carving up dead criminals, under the assumption that by doing so they were consigning their souls to hell. Now biology students can learn about neurotoxins and experimental method by getting zebrafish drunk. I call that progress.

The objections raised here are just weird - undergraduates must only be doing non-replicative original research? Exposing zebrafish to non-lethal concentrations of ethanol is an unjustifiable harm? I don't understand what can possibly motivate this kind of uninformed criticism. (Don't! Even! Know! What! The! Experiment! Is!) Ichthyic is right, you all -- DaveX, Christian, Dustin -- you're idiots.

There. NOW maybe somebody will answer my questions.

Alright, Ichthyic... let's just say you're totally right, dub you the Richard Frakkin' Feynman of the comment page, and call it a night. I don't see any other way to get some sleep.

Maybe after a night of counting drunken zebrafish, we'll see if PZ has anything to say on the matter. I'm REALLY curious what his take on all this might be.

I don't think this is a situation where some undergrad is duplicating a one-off experiment and going to be coming up with any earthshaking results, sorry.

holy crap, you are an idiot.

did you really think that the results of an undergraduate experiment would end up being published in Nature???

did you ever take a lab course in chemistry or physics?

If so, did you expect to publish the results of your afternoon organic chemistry lab in Science?

Do you really think that is the function of having students do labs, or try simple experiments???

Sweet plastic Jeebus on my dashboard, that's it.

you haven't even gone to college, have you?

I'm arguing with someone who hasn't even gone to college.

*click*

DaveX: I'm going to ignore the Troll and tell you you're wrong anyway.

It's entirely appropriate for undergraduates to repeat experiments in an attempt to duplicate results.

If we take away the issue of animal suffering, then there really isn't any problem whatsoever. I must have done 20 experiments in physics labs during my degree in which I tried to reproduce well-known results.

It gets a little more complicated when the experiments get bigger and involve significant funding. You're right that few grants are given to proposals that only involve the repetition of a previous result. Even so- scientists try as much as they can to make sure that results in the literature can be replicated where possible, especially if those results are controversial.

As to animal suffering. I think the suffering in this case is pretty minimal. The pay-off is that the students will at the very minimum gain some lab experience working with Zebra fish- which they can carry with them to more profound experiments later on in their career.

As I said- this particular experiment doesn't bother me from an ethical perspective. However, I would expect a better justification if the experiment involved cats, dogs, apes etc.

Zebra fish presumably have close to zero consciousness- though different scientists will have different opinions on this. Even so- I would be annoyed if even a Zebra fish were 'tortured' or killed for absolutely no reason. I don't think that is the case here.

Apparently, being jerky is the only way to get anyone to respond to you. I tried polite, and I get nothing.

it doesn't matter, you simply couldn't have gotten anything anyway, since all of his concerns are extrapolations from a one paragraph blog post containing no details and that was mostly written tongue in cheek.

Christian, DaveX, surely you can concede that, though bluntly-spoken, Ichthyic points out you are angsting over hypotheticals, at this stage.

This area of research seems pretty saturated.... I don't think this is a situation where some undergrad is duplicating a one-off experiment and going to be coming up with any earthshaking results, sorry.

I've said it before (#17), and I'll say it again: that's not the point of an undergrad science class. If PZ was directing an undergrad research program in which this kid was a participant, then your criticisms would be (a little) more valid. But this is a class - learning the methods of research is the goal, not producing new research.

For example, any undergrad biochemistry lab involves running electrophoresis gels and finding out something about an unknown sample of DNA. Is this new? Of course not, it's been around for decades. What's important is that the students are learning an experimental technique. If you want to learn about how neurobiology experiments are done, you're going to need an animal with a brain on which to do experiments. It's that simple.

cerebrocrat: Welcome to Troll status!

You're following troll number 1 in conflating the opinions of different people. That's either being pretty lazy or it's an attempt to muddy the waters.

I think you're making a mistake in calling commenters on this page 'idiots' because some of us aren't scientists and aren't necessarily acquainted with the ins and outs of doing science.

(For the record, at least one of the people you're calling an idiot has a PhD. )

I can but repeat my comments to troll number 1 above. I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying- but you've shut down any dialogue with your name-calling and obnoxious behavior. That, it seems to me is entirely self-defeating.

Sorry Ichthyic & Christian, should have refreshed before posting.

Incidentally, I also went to UCSB for a couple years (last in 2000), and I'm sure I also have some familiar stories about Isla Vista. I remember this guy who shaved his goat...

Oh my god, it's like The Twilight Zone... I'm invisible!!!

Hey, everybody, look! I'm naked! I'm tapdancing! I'm snorting live, drunken, zebrafish up my nose! On fire!

Dear god... they can't see or hear me. I feel... so alone...

Oops. Should have been Ichthyic, Christian & cerebrocrat. My mistake.

Even so- I would be annoyed if even a Zebra fish were 'tortured' or killed for absolutely no reason. I don't think that is the case here.

Of course, but the point is, we don't know. and even if we did, it's not appropriate for anybody here to ask PZ to nix it. PZ is his prof, and is more than capable of making such a simple decision, and of course will also be the one who reviews what the actual experiment will be.

the function of research is to learn. the mere fact that, as idiot Dave pointed out in his frantic google search, there have been numerous published articles involving the effects of alcohol on fish behavior and physiology actually suggests this to be a worthwhile area to investigate further.

It's very unlikely that all those studies were "pointless" and still got published, right?

IIRC, PZ even posted a bit of a study he did in his lab regarding something similar (developing embryos exposed to alcohol, I believe) not too long ago.

I don't recall he ever intended to publish the results of that.

why don't you ask him what he thinks the value of his experiments were?

Hey, everybody, look! I'm naked! I'm tapdancing! I'm snorting live, drunken, zebrafish up my nose! On fire!

the zebrafish, or you?

either way, I'd pay to see that.

:p

John: Again- I agree with a lot of what troll 1 and troll 2 are saying, but it's just not possible to enter into a dialogue with them.

This is the second post about this particular experiment. It's to an audience of thousands. Of course- the post doesn't contain enough information to form a reasonable opinion as to the importance of the expt, but that's really the fault of the student and no-one else.

We can only go on the information available to us.

OK, people, just to clarify:

This is a non-lethal experiment. Concentrations will be low, and the animals will be monitored carefully.

The point is to learn some experimental technique. At our lab meeting today, what I told him is that the first thing he has to do is work out some baseline data for untreated fish. Nothing is going near a drop of alcohol until he shows that he can quantify specific aspects of behavior (schooling and startle responses). That may take a while.

While I'll be content if he just gets reliable data and develops a useful behavioral assay, there is also some long-term relevance here. I've been experimenting with zebrafish as an animal model for fetal alcohol syndrome, but most of my assays involve measuring gross morphological defects. The real problem in human systems aren't the extremes, though, but the milder effects: learning disabilities and behavioral changes. We need more subtle behavioral assays to measure those, and this experiment will develop those techniques. I'm most interested in this particular experiment in seeing how you detect a performance impairment in a fish -- and this work actually has the virtue that no long term harm needs to be done to the animal to generate that impairment.

Another interest is in the effects of alcohol exposure on gametes. We've all heard of FAS caused by chronic drinking in Mom...but there are also some reports in mice of paternal alcohol exposure to alcohol affecting progeny. We haven't done much work in my lab with exposing adults to alcohol, so this is a first step.

I agree that the student hasn't done a good job of explaining the rationale for the experiment in the single paragraph he's posted here, but we have talked about it in more depth than you're seeing.

We can only go on the information available to us.

exactly. so why are you continuing?

I think you're making a mistake in calling commenters on this page 'idiots' because some of us aren't scientists and aren't necessarily acquainted with the ins and outs of doing science.

I call em as I see em. If someone chooses to proclaim their scientific 'genius' in the way Dustin and Dave did, tell me a better term to use.

btw, like Dave, you should also look up what the definition of an internet Troll is. It really doesn't make you look all that great using it just as incorrectly as he did.

Hell, there's even YouTube video of effects of alcohol on developing zebrafish.

Heh. Yes. That's mine. Really, this isn't just a random goof of an experiment -- it actually does fit in with some of my other work.

Christian, you're certainly passinate about your concern.

I suspect harderkid13 may have got the message that animal experiments may be contentious to some.

PS Once a point has been made, needless repetition tends to annoy.

cerebrocrat: Welcome to Troll status!

Yay! I'm a real boy now!

You're following troll number 1 in conflating the opinions of different people.

Look, Honus, I'm not conflating shit. You wrote this: "My main gripe is that as it stands- it's just not a very interesting experiment, though I'm not a biologist and can't say I've got any expertise in the field" and I asked, since you're not claiming any expertise, and you don't know what the experiment is, why it seemed worth your while to complain in the first place. I'm still waiting for an answer.

DaveX wrote this: "the purpose of this experiment seems to be to teach some sort of lab procedure." I don't even know what his objection really is and asking him didn't get me anywhere.

Dustin declared his alliance with DaveX and told everybody their points were nonsense. Again, I can't parse what the actual argument is and i can't get any questions answered. I like discussing these things with non-scientists and feel like it's an important challenge to do better at informal science education like this very situation here. But it takes two to tango; I called the three of you idiots because only Ichthyic-of-the-dreaded-namecalling was getting any engagement, so it looked like that's what it would take for me too.

And you proved me right, trollslayer.

While I'll be content if he just gets reliable data and develops a useful behavioral assay

Just content? frankly, I'd be ecstatic. That would be beyond a 'A' grade if an undergraduate student contributed something directly to my own work (it's happened before, but it's all too rare).

on the subject of the emphasized bit, you might try seeing if George Barlow at UC Berkeley still has his "BEAST" behavioral analysis program available.

it would be the absolute perfect thing to help create the kind of behavioral assay you are looking for. The program is designed to input observational data on Cichlid behavior, and is extremely easy to use. Moreover, it's been honed over many years of actual use, so it might save you a lot of time, and the student could then easily contribute usable data right from start.

it won't be available on line, of course (it was custom written and modified over the years in G's lab), but I have little doubt George would be happy to ship you a copy.

Oh, PZ, you spoiled the fun with all your, your... information and details.

Thanks PZ for the bg. It sounds like there are some interesting topics here. I wish your students the best with the expt.

Cichlids! W00t!

uh oh, have i stumbled on a cichlophile?

what're you working on, cerebrocrat?

I used to study ontogenetic color changes in Tropheus duboisi, and mating behavior in Amphilophus citrinellus, though my primary interest is in Pomacentrids wrt to ontogenetic color change (where i published my grad work), and I dropped interest in studying mating behavior in cichlids for migratory behavior and general population studies of sharks (quite a shift, yeah).

I do neurophysiology in central vestibular circuits, and got into cichlids somewhat accidentally (turns out Astatotilapia burtoni has some interesting oculomotor behaviors) but now that I'm working with them, I keep thinking of more things to do. What great animals they are.

What great animals they are.

yup. I find it hard to complain about such a diverse group of fishes that are so easy to acquire and care for.

Moreover, I put them right up there with Characins as being great aquarium pets. Some of them are quite beautifully colored, too.

the juvenile form of Tropheus, for example, is an absolutely gorgeous dark black with while polka-dots.

I keep thinking of more things to do.

the possibilities seem endless; Alan Wilson's lab used to use them to develop PCR techniques, there is a huge body of work utilizing cichlids to study radiation in African rift lakes, and of course the above mentioned studies on mating behavior and female mate choice done in the Barlow lab for the last 30 years, to mention just a few.

that said, I don't think there is anyone on the planet that knows more about cichlids, and who is doing what with them, than George Barlow. The man is literally a walking encyclopedia of knowledge, and all the moreso wrt cichlids (he's published 4 dozen or so articles on them at last count, and that was a few years back). So, I'd throw out the same recommendation to contact him if you ever had ANY questions about cichlids, especially wrt evolution and behavior... and care and maintenance. He's no slouch on the development and physiology of the critters, either.

he's also plugged in to all the cichlid "networks", so if you are looking to acquire a particular species, again, I can't think of a better single person to start with.

I probably should mention he was my major prof when I was in grad school, in case it wasn't obvious.

:)

I calculate bond energies (and other nifty observables) by using a path integral formulation of quantum mechanics with large basis sets.

Wait, no one asked the undergraduate in chemical physics :'(

Shawn: I do path integrals too! You got any examples of your work on the web you can point me to?

(NOTE: I tend to get lost in the comments on such topics as these)

Christian: Not on the PI stuff (though my work this summer is nearing completion [egads, long story on issues with high-power computing] and a paper is done...just need results and discussion). I've mostly been working with my professor rerunning and optimzing the code (and learning FORTRAN) from his previous publications.

I hope to get the preliminary work done so I can begin generalizing the code for aromatic organic systems, particularly benzene and substituted-benzene.

I should note the aromtaic systems would be written for my undergraduate thesis. Well, in theory...we'll see what actually gets placed in it by next Spring, hehehe!

I calculate bond energies (and other nifty observables) by using a path integral formulation of quantum mechanics with large basis sets.

Is that part of a physical chemistry course, or are you actually doing that independently in a lab on campus?

if the latter, sounds like you're well on your way to grad school!

I was one course away from completing a minor in chemistry (major in aquatic biology) as an undergrad, and to this day I kinda regret not taking the offer from some of the profs there to become a graduate student in marine chemistry.

would have been a much more stable career choice, but at the time, behavior was just so much more interesting to me.

meh, who am I kidding? It still is, even though grant money to study behavior is evaporating like alcohol on hot pavement.

Shawn: Are you actually doing the full electronic structure using path-integral, or only the nuclear degrees of freedom. It's my understanding that it's tough to get around the 1/r singularity in the Coulomb potential when doing electronic structure with path-integrals, though I believe Kleinert found a way.

Anyway- you can reply by email if you want. I don't want to bore the biologists.

christianjburnham at gmail.com

ah, you posted 103 while i was typing.

yes, sounds like you are well on your way.

good luck with your honor's thesis, hope you manage to get it published, too!

Incidentally, I also went to UCSB for a couple years (last in 2000), and I'm sure I also have some familiar stories about Isla Vista. I remember this guy who shaved his goat...

do they still have the annual rugby tournament there?

and do the rugby players still tear up IV and turn over cars afterwards?

gotta admit, though, those were some fun damn parties.

oh, and are they still doing the inter-sorority beach volleyball tourney down at State Beach?

>Perhaps after this experiment I will test my own reactions and behaviors after being constantly smashed for two weeks.

You know, I've heard rumors that you drink like a fish. [rim shot]

PZ didn't spoil anything, Ich-- I asked him to come comment on this thread, to give us some more information. I'm more or less happy with what he's said, and glad that this experiment can possibly help with developing techniques for existing research.

I am, though, a little bothered about the remark Ichthyic made: "If someone chooses to proclaim their scientific 'genius' in the way Dustin and Dave did..."

I've done no such thing. I also DO have a college education, despite Ich's earlier lament. Last I checked, a degree wasn't a necessary pre-req for opinionated discussion in a blog's comment thread.

To quote SB itself: "At a time when public interest in science is high but public understanding of science remains weak, we have set out to create innovative media ventures to improve science literacy and to advance global science culture."

I enjoy being part of this conversation, and learning more as I go. Unfortunately for folks like Ich, conversations are a two-way street-- this isn't about sitting at your feet, and listening to anyone call us whiners and idiots.

I've only read the first comment, but I'd like to add that I've gotten a spider drunk too. It was a large female Hogna helluo and staggered about for a bit before she just gave up and remained motionless. I'd love to see what effect that would have on her mating choices...

"The man is literally a walking encyclopedia of knowledge"

Please stop misusing the word "literally".

I was only able to make it through about 1/2 the comments here, but I would like to stand up for the drunk fish project! My current research involves getting fish drunk (that NIH link refers to one of ours), and I'm a bit confused about where all the controversy is coming from...perhaps the experiment was just poorly described in the original post. Anyway, if you need advice on the fish-drunking, I'm happy to help.

grant money to study behavior is evaporating like alcohol on hot pavement.

LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LALALALALA

PZ didn't spoil anything, Ich--

(shedding bitter tears) No matter what I do, I just can't get noticed. That's it, I'm saving up for a boob job.

Hey, Ichthyic - so, while I love my burtonis (when they're not killing each other), I am fairly new to cichlidelia. Do you have a book or review article you like for a good introduction to behavioral diversity? I'll certainly check out Barlow. The work with which I'm most familiar is Fernald's, unsurprising since he's a neuroscientist like me. FWIW, there is presently a crop of neuroscientists I'm aware of who are just getting into cichlids, so you can expect a flurry of cichlid neuroscience publication in a couple of years. If you want to contact me off-blog, I'm at my name at gmail.

OK, I tried to make it through the rest of the comments, and couldn't. My brain hurts now. Wow, people are nasty animals.

Anyway, (1) ethanol at reasonable doses is not particularly harmful to fish: I have a huge 'retirement' tank of post-experimental zebrafish whose health and life expectancy have not been altered by participation in ethanol-related experiments. (2) no, he doesn't note a hypothesis. yes, he does need one. Perhaps we should trust that no thinking professor would actually let their student run an experiment without a hypothesis, so the real fault is simply that the student failed to post it in the blog?

PZ didn't spoil anything, Ich

nice one, I see your reading comprehension matches the rest of your analytical skills.

that one was posted by the invisible guy with burning zebrafish stuffed up his nose.

I enjoy being part of this conversation, and learning more as I go. Unfortunately for folks like Ich, conversations are a two-way street-- this isn't about sitting at your feet, and listening to anyone call us whiners and idiots.

then, why don't you stop acting like one?

Perhaps you might admit that you came in here, breathing fire and asking PZ to slap down his student's diabolical experiment, when in fact, no experiment had even as yet been defined? Perhaps you might admit that it really isn't appropriate for you to call on a professor to nix a student's project, even if you DID have the slightest clue as to the methods and expected results? perhaps you might admit that you haven't the slightest clue as to the value the other experiments regarding alcohol and fish that you yourself dug up, or why replication is valuable, or even what the value of having students design and perform lab experiments is to begin with?

that perhaps, while calling you on your idiotic behavior, I was in fact making the exact same points as the invisible man you keep seeming to ignore?

(psst - he's right over there)

Step 1. Put cat in paper bag.
Step 2. Blow recycled THC into bag. (How you get the recycled THC is left to your discretion.)
Step 3. Leave cat in paper bag for thirty seconds.
Step 4. Remove cat very docile from paper bag.
Step 5. Watch cat sleep for three days.

Notes:
1. Cat will recover from experiment, but will be very hungry.
2. Do not, under any circumstances, use a cat that weighs more than 40 pounds.

I'm at my name at gmail.

will do, I seem to recall a couple of nice books on the subject of cichlids, but they aren't in my current collection so I'll have to look them up for you. I have played around with some of the cichlid societies (national groups of cichlid enthusiasts), and find them to be a great resource as well. It's been a while, though, so I'll see if I can dig up the contact info. for a couple of them for ya.

on a much sadder note, I hadn't checked in with George since late last year, and it turns out he just recently (July) passed away. Damn.

However, his legacy remains in the hundreds of publications in general ethology and the behavior and biology of fishes since he was a student of Konrad Lorenz.

here's a short list (yeah he actually published well over 200 articles that I'm aware of):

http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/barlow/publications.html

In fact, his last book looks like a good basic resource on cichlids that covers a great deal:

http://ib.berkeley.edu/labs/barlow/book.html

damn.

Thanks for the info, PZ! Sounds like the experiment is entirely justified. It's odd how some people were so willing to defend it (to the point of repeatedly calling the skeptics "idiots") when they themselves knew so very little about the experiment. But then again, I guess they just assumed (and rightly so!) that you would never let a student carry-out an unjustified experiment that could potentially harm animals. I just hope they don't make a general habit of their faith.

It's odd how some people were so willing to defend it (to the point of repeatedly calling the skeptics "idiots") when they themselves knew so very little about the experiment.

nice bit of projection.

idiot.

"I'm a bit confused about where all the controversy is coming from"

two related fronts. first, of course, you have good old animal rights types all across the scale. comments mostly from the more rabid of course but you may assume the audience includes the natural range. second, you have wannabe science critics- although again usually the more rabid are the disingenuous animal rights types trying to critique the specific experiment to hit out at the enterprise.

in my view, the point of the discussions here on SB is not to convert the rabid. it is rather to communicate how science is done, why, and the value that results to the more casually interested reader. (although deflating the more flamboyantly ignorant position of the rabid is certainly informative and fun too). in this thread the manner of training scientists with real lab experiences has been explicated as well. so don't despair over the mean and nasty, the readership is probably 2-3 orders of magnitude greater than the commentership...

How about picking a pointless experiment that doesn't harm any animals, then?

It's a neurobiology class, geniuses. Don't you think at some point they probably need to do an experiment on something with a brain?

It's a neurobiology class, geniuses. Don't you think at some point they probably need to do an experiment on something with a brain?

Well, that will be news to hundreds of scientists who work on invertebrate or vertebrate neurons and glial cells that don't reside in brains.

"We regret to inform you that you no longer qualify as a neurobiologist. Please report to Professor Chet for research topic relocation to an approved Vertebrate Brain Region."

Some Blog Comment Threads Do Have 'Em....

A worthwhile point, Barn Owl (are you wearing your prisms, btw? how do you type...?) but all the same, it IS pretty likely that in a neurobiology class, sooner or later, one is going to come into contact with a brain.

are you wearing your prisms, btw? how do you type...?

Not a problem, if I don't have to orient to auditory cues at the same time. ;-)

Neurobiology takes all types, of course, including those who wandered into (nervous system) cancer research and into teaching gross anatomy, embryology, and neuroscience to med students, from a UO neuroscience PhD. Like myself. Seems a bit extreme to categorize entire sub-disciplines and some model organisms of neuroscience research as "non-neurobiology", just because brains aren't involved as subjects.

I guess I just find the snide, dismissive generalizations and (weird) assumptions of intellectual superiority to be...tiresome.

"The man is literally a walking encyclopedia of knowledge"

Wow! Not only is this man LITERALLY an encyclopedia, he is literally a WALKING encyclopedia. And not only that! He's literally a walking encyclopedia of KNOWLEDGE! (You know, as opposed to the other kind of encyclopedia.)

Did the person who wrote this literally call me an idiot? And just because I expressed some reservations about an ill-presented experiment proposal?

Wow.

It's a fucking expression. If you would have ever met the man, you might have said the same thing. alas, not only wouldn't he likely give you the time of day, but you might have also noticed that I just found out he's dead, so you'll never actually get the chance to meet him.

and yes, you ARE an idiot, and have yet to even come close to suggesting otherwise, even your attempts at flaming are more like wet candles.

go take your trollish, whiny, dumbass self and jump down a well or something, eh? you're not half as good at flaming as you are at being an idiot.

I guess I just find the snide, dismissive generalizations and (weird) assumptions of intellectual superiority to be...tiresome.

what i find tiresome are those who defend the horrid ignorance of idiots who haven't the slightest clue as to what science is about, yet feel perfectly well endowed to expound their lack of expertise over and over again. Even to the point of asking a professor to pull the plug on an experiment that hasn't even been defined.

now, tell me, wtf does THAT have to do with "intellectual superiority" again?

ah, a fellow Gaucho alumnus. Those were the days, indeed.
graduated far later than you did (87), but likely share similar stories of the fabled Isla Vista.
great school.

Wow, and here I had the mistaken impression that you were around 16, at the oldest.

My bad.

My bad.

on multiple levels.

care to try again?

as to your comment to #122, gee you don't think maybe the posters point was that students interested in neurobiology will eventually have to work with animals to study it?

no, you decided to quibble over the issue of brain vs neuron.

good choice.

next

hey, while you seem so concerned about the issue of "intellectual superiority", perhaps you should voice your miseries over on the thread titled:

The concern troll clans are gathering

Oh crap! Now all my fish are clamoring for Whiskey Sours and some thing they call a "stingah". Who knew tropical fish liked such out-of-date cocktails? I guess they don't get out to the clubs much. I'll see what I can do to liven up their lives, as long as they don't start drinking excessively.

The Disgruntled Chemist: Hm, a hypothesis came to mind. Elephants, like humans are very social. I wonder if there's a connection between the sociality of an animal and its love of ethanol, given the "social lubricant" thing.

Ken Mareld: Anecdotally, I've heard of pothead cats previously. Dunno if there's any research on it.

I can't imagine how many rotting pieces of fruit that elephant had to eat to get staggering drunk.

It isn't drunk. It's poisoned by insect larvae that live in the fruits.

On another note, phenoxyethanol isn't ethanol!

r u even kidding?! im trashed right now and even i can tell that this is a bad idea... wow...

im a man making the nine flies face!!!!!!