According to
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080604/sc_afp/switzerlandscienceanimal , a
group of flies "had its intelligence boosted by Pavlovian methods, such
as associating smell and taste with particular food or experiences. Over
30 to 40 generations, these methods led to flies which clearly learned
better and remembered things for longer."
I'm guessing that this is wrong (unless they have made a cataclysmic
Lamarckian breakthrough). I presume that they used Pavlovian
conditioning as a way to distinguish "bright" from "dull" flies, and
then selectively bred the "bright" ones. In any case, th article then
goes on to say that "the flies left in their natural state lived longer
on average than their "cleverer" counterparts, with a lifespan of 80-85
days rather than the normal 50-60."
This makes it sounds like the "natural" flies lived longer than
"normal," which also can't be right. I assume that the "enhanced" flies
lived not as long as normal. In any case, there is almost no general
conclusion that can be drawn from this about the relationship between
intelligence and longevity from this unless we know what systems were
affected by the artificial selection. Obviously, many animals have been
*naturally* selected for intelligence over the eons, without markedly
shortening their lifespan. This case is more like that of dogs that are
bred for a particular "look" and, in the process, are coincidentally
selected for life-threatening weakness in their organ systems as well.
The published speculation that "the increase in neural activity weakens
the fly's life-support systems," doesn't make much sense.
The journalistic reporting is probably worse than the original study.
You may wish to use it in class (either in cognition, in
evolutionary/comparative psych, or in critical thinking).
Regards,
Chris Green
York U.
Toronto
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
