When doing favors, monkeys don't keep score

Humans may not be unique in the ability to assist strangers.

By: By Lisa Newbern, While exchanging favors with others, humans tend to think in terms of tit-for-tat, an assumption easily extended to other animals. As a result, reciprocity is often viewed as a cognitive feat requiring memory, perhaps even calculation. But what if the process is simpler, not only in other animals but in humans as well? Researchers at Emory’s Yerkes National Primate Research Centerhave determined monkeys may gain the advantages of reciprocal exchange of favors without necessarily keeping precise track of past favors. Malini Suchak, an Emory graduate student, and psychologistFrans de Waal, director of the Living Links Center at Yerkes, led the study. Their findings will appear online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences this week. "Prosocial is defined as a motivation to assist others regardless of benefits for self,” Suchak explained. "We used a prosocial choice test to study whether direct reciprocity could promote generosity among brown capuchin monkeys. We found one monkey willing to do another favors if the first monkey was the only one to choose, and we found the monkeys became even more prosocial if they could alternate and help each other. We did not find any evidence that the monkeys paid close attention to each other's past choices, so they were prosocial regardless of what their partner had just done.” Suchak and de Waal suggest the synchronization of the same actions in alternation creates a more positive attitude the same way humans who row a boat together or work toward a shared goal develop a more positive attitude about each other. The capuchin monkeys were prosocial whether they were paired with a familiar partner from their own group or a partner from a different social group. "This research has several implications for better understanding human behavior,” de Waal said. “First, we observed an increase in prosocial behavior as a result of reciprocity, but the monkeys did not develop a contingency between their own and their partners' behaviors. Like humans, the capuchins may have understood the benefits of reciprocity and used this understanding to maximize their own benefits. Second, that the capuchins responded similarly to in-group and out-group partners has implications for the commonly held view that humans are unique in their ability to cooperate with strangers.” The researchers tested 12 brown capuchin monkeys in pairs on a prosocial choice task. The monkeys had the choice between a selfish token that benefited only them and a prosocial token that benefited themselves and a partner. By comparing each monkey's behavior with a familiar partner from the monkey's own group and a partner from a different social group, the researchers examined the influence of each monkey's relationship outside the experimental context on prosocial behavior. There was no difference between in-group and out-group pairs in any of the test conditions. To test the role of reciprocity, the researchers allowed the monkeys to take turns making choices and found this greatly increased prosocial behavior, but the researchers did not observe any tit-for-tat behavior. The researchers also tested whether the monkeys could overcome their aversion for inequity by creating a situation in which both individuals could provide each other with superior rewards, making reciprocity an even more attractive strategy. The monkeys did, but again without keeping track of each other's choices. Finally, through a series of control conditions, the researchers established the monkeys were responding to their partners' behaviors, rather than the rewards delivered by their partners, and that the monkeys understood the values of the tokens and were flexibly responding to changing conditions throughout the test sessions. Source: eScienceCommons

Read More........→September 12, 2012

Nanotechnology breakthrough could impact on life-like telepresense

Thomas is working with gold nanoparticles and studying their properties when they are shrunk into a small size regime called nanoclusters. Nanoparticles are already microscopic in size, and a nanometer is about 1/80000 of the thickness of a single strand of human hair. Nanoclusters are on the small end and nanocrystals are on the larger end of the nanoregime. Nano clusters are so small that the laws of physics that govern the world people touch and smell aren’t often observed. Thomas and his team found that nanoclusters developed by adding atoms in a sequential manner could provide interesting optical properties. It turns out that the gold nanoclusters exhibit qualities that may make them suitable for creating surfaces that would diffuse laser beams of high energy. Apart from applications in defense in protecting pilots from laser beams, Thomas also thinks that these nanoclusters could improve the sensitivity of semi-relfective films to light. This could lead to Pepper’s Ghost style solutions which require much less of a controlled lighting environment to create the illusion and make them considerably more practical in the installed environment rather than just as stage gimmicks for rock stars and CEOs. Source: InAVate

Read More........→September 11, 2012

Innovation" is the key word in scientific achievement

"How curiosity begat Curiosity" Scientific breakthroughs come from investing in science education and basic research. By: Ahmed Zewail, August 19th, 2012, Los Angeles Times

On Aug. 5, I was among those who witnessed the rover Curiosity landing on Mars in real time at NASA's Caltech-managed Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The excitement was overwhelming: The one-ton Mars Science Laboratory broke through the Red Planet's atmosphere, slowed its speed from 13,000 mph to almost zero and touched down. One glimpse of those first images from more than 100 million miles away demonstrated America's leadership in innovation. Curiosity — the rover and the concept — is what science is all about: the quest to reveal the unknown. America's past investment in basic science and engineering, and its skill at nurturing the quest, is what led to the Mars triumph, and it is what undergirds U.S. leadership in today's world. But now, decreases in science funding and increases in its bureaucracy threaten that leadership position. After World War II, scientific research in the U.S. was well supported. In the 1960s, when I came to America, the sky was the limit, and this conducive atmosphere enabled many of us to pursue esoteric research that resulted in breakthroughs and Nobel prizes. American universities were magnets to young scientists and engineers from around the globe. The truth is that no one knew then what the effect of that research would be; no one could have predicted and promised all that resulted. After all, it is unpredictability that is the fabric of discovery. In much of academia today, however, curiosity-driven research is no longer looked on favorably. Research proposals must specifically address the work's "broad relevance to society" and provide "transformative solutions" even before research begins. Professors are writing more proposals chasing less research money, which reduces the time available for creative thinking. And with universities facing rising costs generally, professors are more and more involved in commercial enterprises, which may not always push basic research forward. Even faculty tenure may be driven less by how good one is at science than how good one is at fundraising. These constraints and practices raise the question: Would a young Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman or Linus Pauling be attracted to science today? Would they be able to pursue their inquiries into fundamental questions? A generation ago, at the same time that government was supporting curiosity-based research, so was U.S. industry. One of the jewels was Bell Labs, where fundamental research was so advanced that it used to be said that it was "the best university in America." Bell Labs employed some of the world's leading scientists and engineers, and collectively they made pioneering contributions, from the discovery of the tiny transistor to the "big bang" origin of our universe. The broad-based fundamental research at Bell Labs is no longer pursued, and other industrial labs have, for the most part, disappeared or redirected their resources into much more product-oriented research. I teach at Caltech and oversee a research laboratory there. In general, I find that the majority of young people are excited by the prospects of research, but they soon discover that in the current market, many doctorate-level scientists are holding temporary positions or are unemployed. The average age at which principal investigators receive their first major government grant has risen, and experience from multiple postdoctoral positions is often necessary for advancement in academia. This slow track discourages young scientists from pursuing research careers. So what is the formula for better "managing" discoveries? The answer is in the natural evolution of research and development, from curiosity-driven science to technology transfer and then to societal benefits. We must nurture creative scientists in an environment that encourages interactions and collaborations across different fields, and support research free from weighty bureaucracies. The nation must provide young people with a proper and attractive education in science, technology, engineering and math. And the best minds from around the world should be encouraged, not discouraged, by public policy to join in this American endeavor. In sum, a renewed vision for investment in fundamental research is needed, especially in Washington, where further cuts across the board in science funding are being contemplated. In the 1950s, Nobel laureate Robert Solow showed that new technologies create a large portion of economic growth, affecting nearly 75% of the growth output in the U.S. The theory of quantum mechanics alone has had a major impact. Without it, revolutionary technologies would not have been realized. Think of the laser, optical communications, MRI and discoveries in drug design, gene technology and miniaturization. At the same time, American influence in the world is bolstered largely through its "soft" power, and science and technology is an essential force of this influence, according to the Pew Research Center's Global Attitudes Project poll. Since the Industrial Revolution, the West has dominated world politics and economics with the power of science. Since the mid-20th century, the United States has been at the center of that dominance, and more recently, China is pouring resources into R&D to reach first world status. The U.S. can still maintain research institutions, such as Caltech, that are the envy of the world, yet it would be hubristic and naive to think that this position is sustainable without investing in science education and basic research. We do not know now what will be relevant tomorrow. American innovation and leadership put the rover Curiosity on Mars. Now is the time to recommit to the wise vision that made it happen — otherwise the sun of innovation will come from the east. [Ahmed Zewail, winner of the 1999 Nobel Prize in chemistry, is a professor of chemistry and physics at Caltech. He also serves on President Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.] Source: Philosophy of Science Portal

Read More........→August 25, 2012