Is it OK to Eat Neanderthals?

by Steve Clarke
June 1, 2009

In a recent article in The Observer the publication of a scientific article presenting evidence in favour of a new theory about the fate of the Neanderthals was reported (See: http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/may/17/neanderthals-cannibalism-anthropological-sciences-journal). According to this new theory, modern humans ate the Neanderthals!

Neanderthals flourished in Europe and Western Asia between 130,000 years and 30,000 years ago. Homo Sapiens are believed to have moved into Europe approximately 30,000 years ago, so it is certainly possible that the two overlapped and that the reason that there are no more Neanderthals is that they ended up in our stomachs. On the other hand it is also possible, as competing theories have it, that the Neanderthals interbred with modern humans and were assimilated into the larger group and it is also possible that Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens had little or no interaction and that the Neanderthals died out as a consequence of the changing climate and other environmental factors. Much remains unknown about the Neanderthals. We do not know how many of them there were and we do not know whether it was actually possible for them to interbreed with modern humans.

On a happier note

by Barbro Froding
May 29, 2009

Starting with the financial crisis back in autumn it seems that greed and poor judgement are two persistent themes this year. While mankind was not entirely unfamiliar with the plague of greed prior to October 2008, recent events have meant that hardly a day goes by when such vicious matters do not make the headlines in one form or another. Attending an Oxford college ceremony the other day gave a bit of a historical perspective on how to deal with greed. The ‘pennies from the tower’ ceremony involved (or used to involve in times prior to current health and safety regulations) inviting a group of impoverished children onto the college lawn and then letting the pennies rain down from the tower above. But as they started to scurry around, fighting each other for the coins, they noticed that the pennies were hot. Piping hot. This was considered an excellent way to teach the children that greed is a vice and that there is no such thing as a free lunch. No doubt the blisters on their little hands would have served as an efficient reminder of this harsh lesson. One of the problems with this practice is it is far from clear that brute force the best way to introduce more positive values and behavioural patterns in people. Indeed, it is not even clear that the threat of punishment and public humiliation works as a deterrent.

Shining monkey, sadistic conclusion?

by Anders Sandberg
May 28, 2009

Japanese researchers have genetically modified marmoset monkeys, and demonstrated that the modification can be inherited by their offspring. The modification was the standard green fluorescent protein making the monkey's glow green under UV light, a marker to demonstrate that the modification worked (BBC shows a picture of their feet glowing "an eerie green", while the picture in Nature's News and Views shows the cute monkeys in normal light and the original paper shows both). The long-term aim is to be able to produce transgenic primates that could act as disease models for humans – many conditions do not map well onto mice and rats. But is it acceptable to introduce heritable illness conditions into animals?

Forensic Failure

by Nicholas Shackel, Cardiff University
May 27, 2009

Testimonial power is the power we have to determine the opinion of others by testifying. To testify is to make sincere assertions in such circumstances under which we are understood to be offering those assertions as to be worth relying upon. When things go well, we tell people what we know and they come to know it through our telling them. We all have varying degrees of testimonial power relative to subject matter, to circumstance, to our knowledge and to what we are known by others to know.

Forensic experts are granted immense testimonial power. Their testimony is taken to be sufficient for conviction in the absence of any other evidence. Judges are reluctant to delve into the grounds of their expertise or into underlying disagreements among experts on the meaning of forensic evidence or the basis of interpretation. Their claims are taken to be backed by the epistemic authority of scientific method.

I do not think that forensic experts presently warrant the testimonial power they have been granted.

Free will and brain stimulation

by Pablo Stafforini
May 26, 2009

A study published recently in Science magazine investigated human volition in patients undergoing brain surgery. Michel Desmurget and his colleagues electrically stimulated the brains of seven subjects awake under local anaesthesia. When the right inferior parietal regions were stimulated, the subjects reported an intention to move their left hand, arm or foot. Stimulation of the left inferior parietal region elicited an intention to talk and move the lips. When regions were stimulated more intensely, the patients believed that they had actually moved those bodily parts, although no movements were in fact performed.

In commenting this study, New Scientist claimed that scientists had found a “possible site of free will.” While one could argue about the wording of that statement, it seems pertinent to consider whether this and similar other studies have implications for the free will debate.

facial transplantation and identity

by Francesca Minerva, University of Melbourne
May 25, 2009

Newspapers recently showed pictures of two people, a man and a woman, who underwent facial transplantations after serious accidents disfigured a large part of their faces. Both recipients were satisfied with the result, and they hope they can now resume a normal life, just like the first woman to receive this kind of transplant five years ago.

A ‘bonkers waste of money’?

by Toby Ord
May 22, 2009

The University of Oxford and the British government have come under fire for spending £300,000 on a study showing that 'ducks like water' (see e.g. The Guardian). The Taxpayer's Alliance has issued a statement pillorying this 'bonkers waste of money', and on surface it sounds like they're right. However, when you look deeper it becomes apparent that the type of research which was performed may well be of great value.

Read More »A ‘bonkers waste of money’?

Self-control matters – but to what extent can it be taught?

by Alexandre Erler
May 21, 2009

Recently in
the news, a report published by the independent think-tank Demos reminds us of
the importance of the capacity for self-control (it also mentions empathy, to
which most of the following remarks apply) in determining life outcomes. It
argues that self-control lessons should be taught at school if children,
particularly from deprived backgrounds, are to be given the tools they need to
succeed in life – low-self-control has for instance been shown to positively
correlate with length of unemployment or criminal behaviour, and negatively
with academic achievement. The report echoes renewed interest in the United
States in a now famous experiment by Walter Mischel on deferred gratification,
dating back to the late 1960s. Mischel tested the capacity of a group of
four-year olds to resist the temptation to eat straightaway a marshmallow he
had given them. The children who were able to refrain turned out to be better
adjusted, more dependable and to do better academically on the whole later in
life.

The report
by Demos makes important points and its proposals deserve to be supported.
Nevertheless, even if they are put into practice, we might still feel concerned
about how effective we can expect them to be. There is indeed a body of
evidence suggesting that the capacity for self-control is to a large extent
genetically determined (Wright & Beaver, 2005; Beaver & al., 2009).

by Neil Levy
May 19, 2009

It would be foolish of me to attempt to say anything substantive about the ethics of abortion in a blog post. But I do want to comment on Obama’s recent foray into the question, as well as on one interpretation of those comments. Addressing the graduating class of Notre Dame University, a traditionally Catholic university, and in the face of demonstrators denouncing him for his ‘pro-choice’ views, Obama called for each side to be respectful of the other. We can, he said, avoid demonizing one another, and work together on common causes. In particular, he said, we can work to reduce the number of abortions, by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies, and work also to make the lives of women who go ahead with pregnancies in difficult situations more bearable.

by Roger Crisp
May 18, 2009

Labour MP Shahid Malik has resigned as justice minister after claims about his expenses were published in the Daily Telegraph: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8051091.stm
Shortly before standing down, he claimed that the extensive media coverage of the expenses issue is in danger of ‘decimating democracy’.

There’s room for debate about whether Mr Malik is using the verb ‘to decimate’ properly. The word comes from the practice in ancient Rome of killing one in ten of a group of soldiers as a punishment for mutiny – not nine out of ten. But of course Mr Malik’s usage is now so common that it probably has to be accepted as part of standard English.