translate

Site update

Since I have been really terrible at updating the blog (but pretty good at keeping up with the facebook blog posts) I've added the widget below so that facebook cross posts to the blog.

You shouldn't need to join facebook but can just click on the links in the widget to access the articles. If you have any problems or comments please mail me at arandjel 'AT' eva.mpg.de.
Showing posts with label captive studies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label captive studies. Show all posts

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Decade-long 'Great Chimp Migration' to St. Lucie County complete


Congratulations to Save the Chimps!!! Jen et al. all of your incredible work has paid off, I wish you all the best!!!-MA

from tcpalm.com
by Alexi Howk

If chimps had a history book, Dec. 15 would be an important mark in it, said Save the Chimps Sanctuary Director Jen Feuerstein.

It's a landmark day for some chimps who got to touch grass for the first time and one that also culminated the decade-long "Great Chimpanzee Migration."

The migration came to a close last week as the last 10 of 266 total chimps were relocated from a former biomedical research lab in Alamogordo, N.M., to the Save the Chimps' 150-acre sanctuary in Fort Pierce.

CNN's Miami correspondent, John Zarrella, and camera crew joined Save the Chimps in New Mexico to film the entire migration from start to finish. The event will be featured on the network's "CNN Presents" sometime next year, Feuerstein said.

"There were a lot of tears when we departed the former lab in New Mexico for the last time, a mixture of happy and sad tears," Feuerstein said. "I'd say it was a bit like sending your kids off to college."

The chimps were transported to the Florida sanctuary in a custom-made trailer. As a cross-country tradition, each chimp gets treated to french fries and a window seat.

The two-day journey began Dec. 12. The new residents arrived at the sanctuary on Dec. 14 and were released the next day onto an island and introduced to their new outdoor freedom.

"None of these chimps had ever been outside of a cage before, and they hadn't ever seen grass, never mind touched it," Feuerstein said. "But every single one of them courageously went out the door, even though they had no inkling of what could be waiting for them on the other side. They were pretty quiet for teenage and twenty-something chimps and seemed a bit mystified by it all."

Dubbed by the organization as the largest chimpanzee sanctuary in the world, Save the Chimps provides permanent residence for chimps used by the research, entertainment and pet-trade industries.

The sanctuary, founded in 1997 by the late Dr. Carole Noon, is equipped with 12 man-made islands that connect to hurricane-proof housing units for the animals. Because chimps can't swim, each island is surrounded by moats of water to prevent the primates from escaping.

Many of the chimps at the sanctuary spent their entire lives in small, concrete cages unable to socialize with other primates or experience the outdoors. Many of them still carry the emotional scars of having painful experiments conducted on them.

Most of the chimps come from the Coulston Foundation, a research lab repeatedly cited for abusing and neglecting its primates. The lab closed in 2002 amid financial problems. Save the Chimps later won custody of the chimps and acquired and spruced up the property. The organization has cared for the chimps on site until they could be relocated to Florida.

"The caregivers there are so devoted and will miss the chimps deeply, but they are also overjoyed that the cages there are finally empty," Feuerstein said of the New Mexico facility. "There were also a lot of tears as we thought about Dr. Noon, wishing she was there to close the gate for the last time. This was her dream. But we all felt that she was there in spirit, and we are proud (to) have made her dream come true."

SUCCESS! Panel Finds That Nearly All Invasive Chimp Research is Unnecessary; NIH Agrees

From Discover magazine

After seven months of deliberation, the US Institute of Medicine has released a report that marks a turning point in the use of chimpanzees, humanity’s closest relative, in medical research. An IOM panel found that chimpanzees were in the vast majority of cases no longer required for disease research and laid out three stringent rules against which all current and future chimp research should be judged. Within two hours, Francis Collins, the head of the National Institutes of Health, announced he had accepted the group’s analysis and would set up a committee to apply the rules to proposed and ongoing research projects funded by the NIH.

The recommendation is a reflection of our growing realization that chimps may be capable of self-awareness, empathy, grief, and happiness, and may possess basic morality as well as a culture; Brandon Keim, who has covered chimp research extensively for Wired, notes that some scientists have begun to think they should qualify as nonhuman people. Subjecting them to disease, pain, and psychological trauma in the service of research thus has grown to seem ethically dubious, especially after it was revealed that the NIH planned to send 209 chimps who had been allowed to retire from medical research back into the lab and that an NIH division had illegally bred captive chimpanzees. At the same time, scientists’ increasing skill with using cells in Petri dishes and cheaper, less ethically daunting lab animals like mice in experiments with potential drugs have meant that there are today relatively few research projects for which chimpanzees are the best option. The only projects that the committee believed might have potential need for chimpanzees are those researching vaccines for hepatitis C and a few current projects looking at certain types of antibodies.

Accordingly, the IOM has recommended that the NIH approve chimps as research subjects only in cases when no other suitable model is available, when the experiment cannot be performed ethically in humans, and when important progress will be significantly delayed or stopped altogether without the use of chimps. Noninvasive behavioral research in which chimps live in near-natural conditions and comparative genomics work, which usually just requires a blood sample, are not prohibited but will need to meet another set of conditions under the committee’s recommendations. All future chimp research projects submitted for funding to the NIH will be assessed according to these criteria, and current publicly funded projects that use chimps, which number roughly 37, will also be reviewed to make sure that they meet the guidelines. Collins told Nature News that he believes about 50% will wash out under the new rules.

--
The official Statement by NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins on the Institute of Medicine report addressing the scientific need for the use of chimpanzees in research:

The use of animals in research has enabled scientists to identify new ways to treat illness, extend life, and improve health and well-being. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives in the animal kingdom, providing exceptional insights into human biology and the need for special consideration and respect. While used very selectively and in limited numbers for medical research, chimpanzees have served an important role in advancing human health in the past. However, new methods and technologies developed by the biomedical community have provided alternatives to the use of chimpanzees in several areas of research.

In December 2010, the National Institutes of Health commissioned a study by the Institute of Medicine to assess whether chimpanzees are or will be necessary for biomedical and behavioral research. The IOM now has issued its findings, with a primary recommendation that the use of chimpanzees in research be guided by a set of principles and criteria. The committee proposed three principles to analyze current and potential future research using chimpanzees.

That the knowledge gained must be necessary to advance the public’s health;
There must be no other research model by which the knowledge could be obtained, and the research cannot be ethically performed on human subjects; and
The animals used in the proposed research must be maintained either in ethologically appropriate physical and social environments (i.e., as would occur in their natural environment) or in natural habitats.

Based on its deliberations, the IOM committee concluded that “while the chimpanzee has been a valuable animal model in past research, most current use of chimpanzees for biomedical research is unnecessary.” The committee also concluded, however, that the following areas may continue to require the use of chimpanzees: some ongoing research on monoclonal antibody therapies, research on comparative genomics, and non-invasive studies of social and behavioral factors that affect the development, prevention, or treatment of disease. The committee was unable to reach consensus on the necessity of the chimpanzee for the development of prophylactic hepatitis C virus vaccine. While the committee encouraged NIH to continue development of non-chimpanzee models and technologies, it acknowledged that new, emerging, or re-emerging diseases may present challenges that may require the use of chimpanzees.

I have considered the report carefully and have decided to accept the IOM committee recommendations. NIH is in the process of developing a complete plan for implementation of the IOM’s guiding principles and criteria. I will be assembling a working group within the NIH Council of Councils to provide advice on the implementation of the recommendations, and to consider the size and placement of the active and inactive populations of NIH-owned or -supported chimpanzees. We will not issue any new awards for research involving chimpanzees until processes for implementing the recommendations are in place.
NIH is committed to conducting and supporting high-quality science in the interest of advancing public health, and to the humane care and use of animals used in NIH research. I am grateful to the IOM for their careful and thoughtful assessment of this important and sensitive topic.

Rats Free Trapped Friends, Hint at Universal Empathy

from WIREDhttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
By Brandon Keim




With a few liberating swipes of their paws, a group of research rats freed trapped labmates and raised anew the possibility that empathy isn’t unique to humans and a few extra-smart animals, but is widespread in the animal world.

Though more studies are needed on the rats’ motivations, it’s at least plausible they demonstrated “empathically motivated pro-social behavior.” People would generally call that helpfulness, or even kindness.

“Rats help other rats in distress. That means it’s a biological inheritance,” said neurobiologist Peggy Mason of the University of Chicago. “That’s the biological program we have.”

In a study published Dec. 7 in Science, Mason and University of Chicago psychologists Jean Decety and Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal describe their rat empathy-testing apparatus: An enclosure into which pairs of rats were placed, with one roaming free and the other restrained inside a plastic tube. It could only be opened from the outside, which is exactly what the free rats did — again and again and again, seemingly in response to their trapped companions’ distress.

The experiment built on research conducted several years ago by geneticist Jeff Mogil at McGill University, where mice were shown capable of “emotional contagion” — a slightly scary-sounding term denoting a tendency to become upset when cagemates were in pain. This might not seem surprising, but anecdotes from wild animal observations don’t pass academic scrutiny, and it hadn’t before been shown in captive mice. It hinted at unexpectedly sophisticated cognition: Mice were supposed to feel pain, but not each other’s, at least not outside children’s stories.

At the time, ethologist Frans de Waal of Emory University, whose work has helped redefine what’s known scientifically about thoughts and feelings in chimpanzees and dolphins and elephants, said Mogil’s experiment “justifies speaking of ‘empathy’” — the ability to both put oneself in the shoes, or paws, of another, and to become emotionally involved in their situation. Sure, mice almost certainly weren’t so empathic as humans, but maybe they had the seeds of it. Maybe empathy wasn’t the result of some high-powered cognitive process, as most biologists and psychologists preferred to think, but a relatively simple phenomenon.

Wrote de Waal in Scientific American, “This mouse experiment suggests that the emotional component of this process is at least as old as the mammals and runs deep within us.”

Still, it was hard to know what to think, and emotional contagion didn’t equal empathy. Maybe the mice were simply fearful for themselves. But the possibility was open for investigation. And around the same time as the McGill studies, Bartal — then researching cancer in Israel — noticed rats at her lab becoming distressed when surgeries were performed on other rats. She couldn’t shake the feeling that empathy was involved. When she read about a rat bringing food to a trapped rat, she again thought about empathy.

Bartal went to the University of Chicago, where she joined with Decety, a leading scholar on empathy and prosocial behavior, and Mason, who’d been intrigued by Mogil’s work. Together they designed the new study — and not only did they find what might be empathy, but the rats acted on it.

Once rats learned to free their trapped and agitated partners, they did so almost immediately in trial after trial. The behavior was clearly deliberate. When the restrainer was empty, rats ignored it. When stuffed rats were restrained, the rats ignored them. “It’s compelling evidence that it’s the distress of the trapped cagemate motivating this helping behavior,” said Mason. “It is a huge leap up to use emotional contagion to actually do something, to actually help another individual.”

To make sure the rats weren’t responding to some immediate social reward — a rat version of a thank-you hug — the researchers tweaked the apparatus so that trapped rats were released into a separate cage. Again, the rats freed each other. When given the opportunity to eat chocolate treats first, rats were as likely to release their companions first, and even shared the chocolate with them.

“Empathy is a truly powerful motivator, on a par with the desire for chocolate!” said de Waal, who was not involved in the new study.

According to de Waal, the results “show for the first time that rodents are not just affected by the emotions of others, but that empathy motivates altruism.” He believes the rats responded to an instinctive urge to make their compatriots feel better, just as humans and chimpanzees and some cetaceans do. “The mechanism must ancient,” said de Waal.

However, the researchers stopped short of ascribing the results to a conclusive display of empathy. It’s possible the rats were less concerned with alleviating the suffering of brethren than soothing their own upset feelings. Perhaps the trapped rats’ distress calls were simply loud and annoying, and the free rats wanted to quiet them. One potentially important experimental condition — the opportunity for free rats to simply leave — wasn’t tested.

“The reservation I have is that it’s very difficult to demonstrate empathy. You have to show that the animal is putting itself in another’s shoes, and I’m not sure that’s demonstrated here,” said Joshua Plotnik, an Emory University psychologist and collaborator with de Waal. But Plotnik still called the observations “very exciting.”

According to Mason, further tests are planned in which rats’ stress responses will be damped by drugs. If a rat feels no distress itself but still frees a trapped companion, or if a trapped rat expresses no distress but is still rescued, empathy will seem more likely. “We can figure this question out. It’s completely tractable,” said Mason. “And this experimental model is unbelievably easy to set up. It’s our fervent hope this model will be used by many people to look at helping behavior.”

Cognitive mechanisms thought to underlie empathy and helpfulness could be tested, Mason said. So could the effects of personality traits, sex differences — females rats seemed more helpful, which tracks with studies of chimps and humans — or genetic and environmental variables. Indeed, the tests needn’t be restricted to rats, but could involve any species amenable to captivity.

For Bartal, whether rats were motivated by their companions’ distress or their own is less interesting than the simple fact they responded at all. “The bottom line here is that nature is very smart. Nature made it rewarding for us to end the suffering of another,” she said.

While the researchers didn’t discuss mechanisms underlying the possible empathy, Bartal and de Waal suspect it’s linked to the lengthy care and nursing provided, as in all mammals, by mother rats. “Mammals that need nurture and care after they’re born would require some form of empathic connection between mother and offspring,” Bartal said. Sociality could be another important factor. Rats live in large family groups with complex hierarchies, and empathy is especially important in social settings.

Rats also share basic neurological features, such as a highly developed limbic system and various hormones and neurotransmitters, with all other mammals. These could provide a common ancestral origin for empathy, said Bartal, or evolution could have shaped them independently in converging ways. All roads could lead to empathy.

Of course, mammals don’t have a monopoly on intelligence or sociality or maternal care. Octopi are extraordinarily smart. So are many birds, which also care for their young and can live in large colonies. The seeds of empathy, if that’s what the rats have, could be scattered widely. “Nature has an interesting way of using different structures for similar functions,” said Bartal.

Citation: “Empathy and Pro-Social Behavior in Rats.” By Inbal Ben-Ami Bartal, Jean Decety, Peggy Mason. Science, Vol. 334 Issue 6061, Dec. 9, 2011.

Friday, December 2, 2011

Former Lab Beagles See the Sun for the First Time

Beagle Freedom Project - Second Rescue - June 8, 2011 from João Allex on Vimeo.


By TERRI POUS
from Time

Dog videos never fail to conjure up some sort of emotion. And this one really brings the waterworks. The above footage shows male beagles that were rescued from a California university animal testing lab seeing sunlight and stepping on grass for the first time.

The rescue mission, which happened in June, was recently followed by a much larger one from a lab in Spain. The group that undertook the cause, Animal Rescue Media Education (ARME), rescued a total of 72 dogs in the most recent effort, 32 of them having already been adopted in Europe, according to NBC Los Angeles.

ARME’s Beagle Freedom Project spokesman Gary Smith told the station that the beagles, all between ages 4 and 7, had lived in cages their entire lives.

Unfortunately, beagles’ notoriously obedient dispositions makes them ideal for experimentation. According to the Beagle Freedom Project’s website, they are the breed of choice for lab testing of pharmaceutical, household, and cosmetic products due to their ability to adapt to life in a cage and the fact that they are relatively inexpensive to feed.

When the beagles are no longer needed for research, some labs contact organizations such as ARME, who then work to find good homes for the dogs.

This heartbreaking video was filmed back in June, when the organization brought nine beagles to Los Angeles to get a second chance at life. We dare you not to be moved by that first beagle’s initial tentative steps and soulful eyes.

ARME is a non-profit advocacy group and 501(c)(3) organization funded by tax-deductible contributions. Information on how to make a donation or adopt a beagle is available on the organization’s website.

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BeagleFreedomProject
homepage: http://www.beaglefreedomproject.org/

Saturday, November 19, 2011

Experimental Drug Melts The Fat Off Chunky Monkeys


From NPR.org
by by SCOTT HENSLEY

Fat monkeys, rejoice!

An experimental drug that zeroes in on the blood vessels that feed fatty tissue helped obese monkeys lose quite a bit of weight in a study done by researchers at the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston.

Great for monkeys, sure. But maybe great for you, too.

Here's why. Some diet drugs that work well in rodents don't pan out when it comes time to try them in primates, including us. This drug, called adipotide, seeks out the particular blood vessels that fatty tissue needs for nourishment, then causes cells in those vessels to die.

Deprived of a blood supply, the fatty deposits shrivel up.

Ten monkeys treated in the latest study, whose results were just published in Science Translational Medicine, lost an average of 11 percent of their body weight over a month of treatment. The most weight lost by any of the five monkeys in the placebo group was 1 percent.

On the safety side, the drug was pretty well tolerated but did show some side effects in the kidneys. Those were mild and got better on their own once treatment stopped.

The drug, given by injection, isn't going to be on pharmacy shelves anytime soon. But it has now been seen to work in five different species — from mice to monkeys.

The M.D. Anderson team is getting ready to try the drug in overweight men with prostate cancer to determine if drug-induced weight loss improves their cancers.

Ablaris Therapeutics, a unit of Arrowhead Research Corp., has the rights to the drug. M.D. Anderson and key members of the research team have a financial interest in Ablaris.

For more on the research, see this M.D. Anderson video.

--
Citation: K. F. Barnhart, D. R. Christianson, P. W. Hanley, W. H. Driessen, B. J. Bernacky, W. B. Baze, S. Wen, M. Tian, J. Ma, M. G. Kolonin, P. K. Saha, K.-A. Do, J. F. Hulvat, J. G. Gelovani, L. Chan, W. Arap, R. Pasqualini, A Peptidomimetic Targeting White Fat Causes Weight Loss and Improved Insulin Resistance in Obese Monkeys. Sci. Transl. Med. 3, 108ra112 (2011).

abstract
Obesity, defined as body mass index greater than 30, is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality and a financial burden worldwide. Despite significant efforts in the past decade, very few drugs have been successfully developed for the treatment of obese patients. Biological differences between rodents and primates are a major hurdle for translation of anti-obesity strategies either discovered or developed in rodents into effective human therapeutics. Here, we evaluate the ligand-directed peptidomimetic CKGGRAKDC-GG-D(KLAKLAK)2 (henceforth termed adipotide) in obese Old World monkeys. Treatment with adipotide induced targeted apoptosis within blood vessels of white adipose tissue and resulted in rapid weight loss and improved insulin resistance in obese monkeys. Magnetic resonance imaging and dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry confirmed a marked reduction in white adipose tissue. At experimentally determined optimal doses, monkeys from three different species displayed predictable and reversible changes in renal proximal tubule function. Together, these data in primates establish adipotide as a prototype in a new class of candidate drugs that may be useful for treating obesity in humans

Tuesday, September 13, 2011

non-hormonal birth control pill

From Eureka Alert

OHSU researchers eye newer, safer birth control method

PORTLAND, Ore. — Oregon Health & Science University researchers have uncovered a new contraceptive that is more focused, safer and, therefore, available for use among a larger population of women. The research took place at OHSU's Oregon National Primate Research Center. It is published online in the journal Endocrinology.

Today's birth control methods are several decades old. The Food and Drug Administration for example, approved "The pill," in 1961. It prevents contraception by boosting hormone levels through the use of synthetic hormones. These higher hormone levels interrupt the normal menstrual cycle. In short, the synthetic hormones inhibit the release of the hormones responsible for triggering ovulation.

"While the method works, it has its downsides," explains ONPRC scientist Jon Hennebold, Ph.D. "The biggest concern is that by boosting hormone levels, this contraceptive method affects systems throughout a woman's body. Therefore, there are some risks associated with current contraceptive methods, primarily cardiovascular disease."

An additional downside is that hormonal treatments like the pill require the user to conform to a daily medication schedule. Because of this requirement, the pill is only about 80 to 90 percent effective.

In comparison, the contraceptive OHSU researchers are developing is not hormonal and more focused on mechanisms that directly result in the release of an egg. This new approach targets the key enzymes responsible for the release of an egg. Hennebold and his colleagues were able to determine exactly which enzymes to focus on by studying rhesus macaque monkeys that have a very similar reproductive system to humans.

This research in monkeys has demonstrated that targeting these enzymes can prevent the release of an egg from the ovary. The next step for Hennebold and colleagues is to determine the delivery method of such a drug and the timetable for medication.

"Our hope is that the next generation of birth control is more targeted and has a higher effectiveness level," added Hennebold. "Much more work is necessary to further our proposed solution, but we believe that better, safer contraceptive methods are possible."

Tuesday, August 9, 2011

Gap between field and lab observations of chimps narrowing: chimps share.

Thanks to Geraldine F for the link!

From NYTimes
Chimpanzees Clear Some Doubt After Generosity Is Questioned
By CARL ZIMMER
When it comes to the evolution of humans, a lot depended on the kindness of strangers.

Our species is especially cooperative. We routinely help other people — relatives and strangers alike — even when there’s no immediate reward for us. The concern that humans have for each other is part of the foundation of complex societies, from neighborhoods to nations.

Scientists have long wondered how long ago our so-called prosocial behavior evolved. In a new paper published this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a team of scientists at Emory University addresses that question with a study on chimpanzees, one of our closest living relatives. Contrary to some earlier laboratory tests, the Emory researchers concluded that chimpanzees are indeed willing to do favors for others. Our prosocial behavior may therefore date back at least several million years.

“These new results suggest chimpanzees may help others proactively simply because they understand they need help,” said Brian Hare, an anthropologist at Duke University.

The Emory researchers decided to undertake the study because of a contradiction in the scientific literature. Some lab experiments on chimpanzees failed to show a willingness to help, but primatologists who observed chimpanzees in the wild saw many examples of what looked like helping. “They’re sharing food, they’re helping each other in fights — there was a huge mismatch between what was going on in the field and in the lab,” said Victoria Horner, the lead author of the study.

Dr. Horner and her colleagues suspected that the design of earlier lab studies had been too complex for the chimpanzees to figure out. “It seemed to us that the chimps didn’t understand what was going on,” said Dr. Horner.

They set up what they believed was a much simpler experiment. For an earlier study, they had trained captive chimpanzees to give them colored tokens in exchange for food. For the current study, they used those tokens to give seven female chimpanzees a chance to help out fellow chimps.

In each trial a pair of chimpanzees sat next to each other, able to see each other in adjoining cages. They were given 30 tokens, half in one color and half in another. If a chimp gave the scientists a token of one color, she got a package of food while her partner got none. If she gave the other color, both of them got something to eat.

If chimpanzees didn’t care about the welfare of other chimpanzees, the scientists predicted, they’d pick both colors equally often. That’s not what happened. All of the chimpanzees were more likely to pick the generous color, up to 66.7 percent of the time. They showed no preference for their relatives versus unrelated chimps. The scientists also ran control sessions, in which the chimpanzees got food only for themselves, no matter which color they chose. In these control sessions, they had no bias in their choice of colors.

“This now fits with the evidence we know from the wild,” Dr. Horner said.

She speculates that human helping evolved from the kind of bias she and her colleagues see in chimpanzees, as the probability of helping rose in our ancestors. “It’s not that we have a unique ability, but it’s the number of instances of when we do it is vastly different,” she said.

Several experts gave Dr. Horner and her colleagues high marks. “They have been able for the first time to duplicate what field researchers already knew was a natural ability of chimpanzees,” said Christophe Boesch, a primatologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany.

But Michael Tomasello, also at the Max Planck Institute, found the study poorly designed. “The results are uninterpretable,” he said. He notes that the Emory scientists ran their control sessions after the experimental sessions. “Maybe the chimpanzees were just tired of choosing the two-pieces-of-food option by the time the control conditions were run,” Dr. Tomasello said.

Dr. Tomasello and his colleagues have published their own experiments on prosocial behavior in chimps, most recently in July in the journal Nature. His own research leads Dr. Tomasello to a somewhat different conclusion from Dr. Horner’s. “Chimps help others, but what they do not do is give up food themselves so others can have it,” he said. “So they are prosocial when it is not costly, but when it is, not so much.”

Thursday, August 4, 2011

Nénette MovieTrailer



Thanks to Richard M for the link!
This looks totally beautiful/tragic.


From Youtube:

Born in the jungles of Borneo, Nenette is a 40-year-old orangutan -- and the oldest (and most beloved) inhabitant at the Menagerie du Jardin des Plantes in Paris. The latest film by legendary French documentarian Nicolas Philibert (TO BE AND TO HAVE), NENETTE is a captivating study of an enigmatic animal and our relationship to her.

Wednesday, July 20, 2011

Marc Hauser resigns from Harvard


Thanks to Vanessa Van D for the link!

from the Boston Globe
Embattled Harvard professor resigns
Hauser due to return after year’s leave
By Carolyn Y. Johnson

Marc Hauser, a well-known Harvard psychology professor who has been on leave since an internal investigation found him guilty of eight counts of scientific misconduct, is leaving the university.

“Marc Hauser has resigned his position as a faculty member, effective Aug. 1, 2011,’’ Harvard spokesman Jeff Neal wrote in an e-mail response to inquiries from the Globe.

Hauser was a popular professor known for his research and writing on the evolutionary underpinnings of morality and the traits that make the human mind distinct from those of animals. He took a leave of absence after a faculty committee concluded a three-year investigation that was first reported last August by the Globe. But he was due to return to the university this fall, a prospect that made many of his former colleagues uncomfortable.

A large majority of the Harvard psychology faculty had voted not to allow him to teach in the department this year, and the dean of the arts and sciences faculty, Michael D. Smith, had supported their position.

“While on leave over the past year, I have begun doing some extremely interesting and rewarding work focusing on the educational needs of at-risk teenagers,’’ Hauser wrote to the dean in a brief resignation letter, dated July 7, that Harvard released. “I have also been offered some exciting opportunities in the private sector. While I may return to teaching and research in the years to come, I look forward to focusing my energies in the coming year on these new and interesting challenges.’’

Hauser did not respond to e-mail and voice-mail messages requesting a comment.

His resignation brings some resolution to the turmoil on campus over his status, but it still leaves the scientific community trying to sort out what findings within Hauser’s large body of work they can trust. Three published papers led by Hauser were thrown into question by the investigation; one was retracted and two were corrected. Problems were also found in five studies that were either not published or corrected prior to publication.

“What it does do is it provides some sort of closure for people at Harvard. . . . They were in a state of limbo,’’ said Gerry Altmann, editor of the journal Cognition. Based on information provided to him by Harvard last year, Altmann said, the only plausible conclusion was that some of the data in a study published in his journal in 2002 and retracted last year had been fabricated.

“There’s just been this cloud hanging over the department,’’ Altmann said. “. . . It has no real impact on the field more broadly.’’

Harvard has said it is cooperating with a federal investigation into Hauser’s research, which is believed to be continuing. A spokeswoman for the Office of Research Integrity in the Department of Health and Human Services said the agency cannot confirm or deny any ongoing investigations

In an unusual step, Smith wrote a letter to the faculty last year explaining that Hauser had been found “solely responsible’’ for eight instances of scientific misconduct, a serious transgression. The problems, Smith wrote, were not the same in each case, but involved “data acquisition, data analysis, data retention, and the reporting of research methodologies and results,’’ concerns that encompass many key aspects of scientific research.

The dean’s letter detailed a list of possible sanctions in such cases, including involuntary leave and restrictions on a faculty member’s ability to apply for research grants or advise students, but also said that specific actions are kept confidential.

When asked whether there had been pressure on Hauser to resign or whether a settlement had been negotiated, Neal referred to Hauser’s letter, which does not address those issues.

“I’m deeply saddened by the whole events of the last year,’’ Steven Pinker, a psychology professor at Harvard, said yesterday. “Marc is a scientist of enormous creativity, energy, and talent.’’

Hauser is a prolific researcher and public intellectual whose work was featured in newspapers and on television, sparking people’s imagination. He ran a primate laboratory at Harvard, and much of his research explored the abilities of cotton-top tamarin monkeys in such domains as language and math.

He authored a popular book, “Moral Minds,’’ and more than 200 scientific publications and was voted one of Harvard’s most popular professors. His scientific collaborators have included top researchers in disciplines from psychology to linguistics.

In his two-paragraph resignation letter, Hauser wrote, “During my 18 years at Harvard, it has been a great pleasure to teach so many bright and talented students and to work with so many dedicated colleagues.’’

Problems with three published papers were found during the Harvard investigation. One, the 2002 Cognition paper, was retracted. In the two other cases, the papers were corrected. Researchers repeated the experiments after missing field notes and videotapes were discovered. In both those papers, published in the journals Science and the Proceedings of the Royal Society B, the repeated experiments supported the original findings.

Another researcher in Hauser’s field, Michael Tomasello, codirector of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany, said yesterday that Hauser’s departure was not unexpected.

“Once they didn’t let him teach - and there are severe restrictions in his ability to do research - you come to the office and what do you do all day?’’ he said. “People in the field, we’re just wondering; this doesn’t change anything. We’re still where we were before’’ concerning the other studies.

Missing Gene Helps Mice Run for Hours


Lab mice usually take only an occasional jaunt on their exercise wheels. But mice missing a gene called IL-15Rα run for hours each night, a new study reveals. And the gene doesn't just make a difference to mice—it might also be linked to the ability of long-distance athletes to outperform the rest of us.

Previous studies had suggested that IL-15Rα is important for muscle strength. In experiments on cells grown in a Petri dish, the gene seemed to control the accumulation of proteins necessary for muscle contraction. But IL-15Rα had never been studied in a living animal.

In the new research, physiologist Tejvir Khurana of the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues genetically engineered mice to lack the IL-15Rα gene. The changes were dramatic. Each night, according to sensors on the wheels in the mice's cages, the modified mice ran six times farther than normal mice.

But these behavioral quirks weren't quite enough to convince Khurana of the effect on muscles. Lack of the IL-15Rα gene could just be making the mice jittery or giving them extra energy. So the researchers dissected muscles from the longer-running mice. The muscles sported increased numbers of energy-generating mitochondria and more muscle fibers, indicating that they tired less easily. And when the researchers stimulated them with electricity, the muscles continued to contract for longer than normal, taking longer to use up their energy stores, the team reports today in The Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Mice, like humans, have two types of muscles. Fast-twitch muscles, such as the muscles in our fingers, allow more precise movements but tire faster, whereas slow-twitch muscles, like those in our back, are more resistant to fatigue but don't allow such precise movements. Removing the IL-15Rα gene, Khurana says, coaxed the mice's fast-twitch leg muscles to turn into slow-twitch muscles.

To study whether IL-15Rα might also affect human endurance, Khurana collaborated with a group of researchers in Australia who keep a library of genetic samples from Olympic and world-class athletes. They found that certain variants of the IL-15Rα gene were more common in endurance athletes like long-distance cyclists and rowers than they were in sprinters. More than three-quarters of long-distance triathletes had one type of variant, for example. Although researchers don't know yet what functional differences the gene variants might have, the finding suggests that the most successful endurance athletes might have a variant that gives their muscles extra endurance.

Biologist Ronald Evans of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in San Diego, California, says the new study adds to the picture of how endurance is controlled at a molecular level. Evans has characterized the effects of a separate protein called PPARδ, which gives mice extra running endurance as well as enhanced fat-burning abilities. Mice lacking IL-15Rα showed an increase in PPARδ activity, though it's not clear whether the genes directly interact and work through the same mechanisms.

Psychological factors could also be at play. "In a case like this, it's hard to know how to connect the hyperactivity component to the endurance component," Evans says. Even if the mice's muscles have extra endurance, he says, why do they voluntarily run so much more than normal mice?

Still, Khurana says the work raises the possibility that drugs blocking IL-15Rα could one day enhance endurance. Of course, researchers don't know whether such a drug would have other side effects, because the IL-15Rα gene is expressed in many tissues in the body, not just muscles. So for now, if you want to become a better athlete, it's probably best to just lace up your sneakers and get some old-fashioned exercise.

Reference
Pistilli1 EE, Bogdanovich S, Garton F, Yang N, Gulbin JP, Conner JD, Anderson BG,Quinn LS, North K, Ahima RS, Khurana1 TS (2011) Loss of IL-15 receptor α alters the endurance, fatigability, and metabolic characteristics of mouse fast skeletal muscles J Clin Invest. doi:10.1172/JCI44945.

Abstract
IL-15 receptor α (IL-15Rα) is a component of the heterotrimeric plasma membrane receptor for the pleiotropic cytokine IL-15. However, IL-15Rα is not merely an IL-15 receptor subunit, as mice lacking either IL-15 or IL-15Rα have unique phenotypes. IL-15 and IL-15Rα have been implicated in muscle phenotypes, but a role in muscle physiology has not been defined. Here, we have shown that loss of IL-15Rα induces a functional oxidative shift in fast muscles, substantially increasing fatigue resistance and exercise capacity. IL-15Rα–knockout (IL-15Rα–KO) mice ran greater distances and had greater ambulatory activity than controls. Fast muscles displayed fatigue resistance and a slower contractile phenotype. The molecular signature of these muscles included altered markers of mitochondrial biogenesis and calcium homeostasis. Morphologically, fast muscles had a greater number of muscle fibers, smaller fiber areas, and a greater ratio of nuclei to fiber area. The alterations of physiological properties and increased resistance to fatigue in fast muscles are consistent with a shift toward a slower, more oxidative phenotype. Consistent with a conserved functional role in humans, a genetic association was found between a SNP in the IL15RA gene and endurance in athletes stratified by sport. Therefore, we propose that IL-15Rα has a role in defining the phenotype of fast skeletal muscles in vivo.

Thursday, June 30, 2011

Funniest zoo signs ever.

Environmental Grafitti has a gallery of the 20 most ridiculous zoo signs. I've posted some of these before, and I picked my favorite and reposted below, but go to their page to see the full set. Too funny. -MA
via Houston Zoo Wildlife Conservaytion facebok page

Ignorance_is_bliss
Photo: Sparks68


Hard_Habit_to_Break
Photo: BenSpark


Those_who_throw_objects_at_the_crocodiles


If_you_encounter_a_mountain_lion
Photo: alexstaubo

Please_be_safe
Photo: tenioman

It_I_smell_it's_because
Photo: maestroben


Caution_tortoise_may_be_hot

Photo: AxsDeny


Wednesday, June 1, 2011

success - Toronto Zoo closes its elephant exhibit!


From PETA.org
Toronto Zoo to Close Elephant Exhibit
by Jennifer O'Connor

I've got some great news and some not-so-great news. The great news is that the Toronto Zoo has heeded the call of animal defenders, including Bob Barker, and decided to close its elephant display, joining more than a dozen other zoos that have done the same thing. What's more, the Toronto Zoo has agreed that it will not send Toka, Iringa and Thika to any facility that uses bullhooks.

The not-so-great news is that instead of sending the elephants to the spacious comfort of a sanctuary, the zoo seems intent on sending them to another zoo.

The Performing Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) sanctuary in California is willing and able to immediately provide these elephants with the many acres of natural habitat that they need to thrive, warmer weather, and the companionship of other elephants. Toka, Iringa, and Thika deserve no less, and we're appealing to the zoo to send them to PAWS.

Another Canadian elephant in desperate need of retirement is Lucy, who spends her days alone in Edmonton's Valley Zoo. Please ask city officials to send Lucy south.

Sunday, May 15, 2011

London Zoo criticised over death of baby gorilla Tiny

I think this is a sad but interesting issue to discuss. I certainly see Dr. Sommer's point but if zoo's are trying to provide the proper social structure for gorillas then what choice did they have? On the other hand, this comes back to the question I have brought up here several times - what is the role of zoos in conservation? I think most zoo apes are far far away from natural conditions, no matter how hard zoos try. In which case, strictly adhering to wild gorilla social structure maybe should not be the priority. They could have had a 2 female and infant group and introduced the other female to the new silverback. Once the infant was older and his mother started cycling again the mother and juvenile could probably be introduced to the silverback without incident. Many zoos have ape groups that are divided so that some are on display and other not at any given time. It is cleearly not a black and white issue and its something that should be discussed. -MA


From the BBC via the Vigilant Primate Genetics Lab facebook page
London Zoo criticised over death of baby gorilla Tiny
Tiny, a baby western lowland gorilla, with his mother Mjukuu Keepers waited months to introduce Tiny and his mother to the new male

A leading evolutionary anthropologist has called London Zoo "incompetent" over the death of its baby gorilla in an attack by a silverback.

Professor Volker Sommer said he was "bewildered" why seven-month-old Tiny was introduced to new male Kesho.

In the wild, when a new male takes over an existing group, there is a danger he will kill any young fathered by other males to ensure his genes survive.

London Zoo said it took expert advice and did all it could to cut the risks.

The young western lowland gorilla, who was fathered by a male that died last year, was injured on Thursday when he and his mother Mjukuu were introduced to Kesho for the second time.

Vets believe Tiny, the first gorilla to be born at the zoo for 22 years, may have suffered internal injuries following a scuffle in which he broke an arm.

The infant underwent a three-hour operation to pin his arm but vets were unable to revive him.

Prof Sommer, an advisor to the International Union for Conservation of Nature on great apes, said introducing Tiny to the silverback "ignored findings accumulated over the last 40 years".

In a letter to the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), he said: "What on Earth did ZSL expect to happen? Any undergraduate student of zoology could have told you what to expect!

"How can it be that ZSL, an organisation known for being guided by scientific knowledge, ignores findings that have been accumulated over the last 40 years?"

He said those responsible should no longer keep apes if the zoo was not up to scratch with what science told us.

The letter added: "Sorry, but the word 'incompetence' comes to mind for those responsible for this blunder.

"As a logical conclusion, London Zoo should not keep apes anymore."

Kesho's arrival last year was recommended by experts to create a cohesive social group, after the death of the zoo's previous male gorilla.

In the wild male gorillas often attack the offspring of their rivals, so staff were cautious about introducing Kesho to the baby, who was the offspring of the former male.

Kesho had been gradually introduced to the two other female gorillas at the zoo but keepers waited many months for an introduction to the youngster and his mother.

London Zoo said it took advice from the European Association of Zoos and Aquaria's European endangered species programme (EEP), and did all it possibly could to lessen the risks.

It said keepers felt it would be unnatural to keep female gorillas without a male leader.

"We always knew the risks and were very open from the beginning about the fact that bringing a new male into a situation where a female was pregnant by another male was very challenging," a ZSL spokeswoman said.

"We held a press conference in August at the science media centre to explain all of this. However, we were advised by the EEP at the time to find a new male for the long-term welfare of the group as a whole.

"It would be unnatural to keep female gorillas without a male leader and would not have met their complex social needs satisfactorily.

"We did all that we possibly could to mitigate the known risks but fundamentally we cannot stop wild animals exhibiting their natural behaviours, and neither should we."

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Ebola vaccine testing in chimpanzees

From Science
Entering a Wild Frontier: Testing Vaccines in Apes for Apes
by JON COHEN

Tomorrow, chimpanzees will take part in a vaccine experiment that, for the first time, aims to help chimpanzees. Researchers at the New Iberia Research Center, a branch of the University of Louisiana, Lafayette, plan to inoculate six chimpanzees with a vaccine against Ebola, which is decimating wild ape populations. The experiment will not test whether the vaccine works, which would require injecting the animals with a "challenge" dose of the deadly Ebola virus. Rather, it will simply assess the safety of the vaccine and its ability to trigger an immune response.

Primatologist Peter Walsh, the driving force behind the experiment, ultimately wants to vaccinate wild chimpanzees and gorillas against Ebola, and he hopes this test will help him clear a few remaining hurdles. "The objective is to show the conservation community that the vaccine won't kill chimpanzees or gorillas," says Walsh, an ecologist who worked until recently at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. A study led by Walsh and published in the 8 December 2006 issue of Science documented that Ebola had killed about 5000 gorillas in the area his group studied in Gabon and the Republic of Congo. "Ebola has killed one-third of the gorillas in the world," estimates Walsh.

Walsh has pushed for vaccinating wild apes for several years and says he has met some steep resistance. "Vaccination is scary both in international conservation circles and to many people in Africa," says Walsh. But Max Planck primatologist and great ape conservationist Christophe Boesch, who has worked with Walsh in the past, supports his efforts. "Vaccination of wild apes is certainly a new and somehow contentious notion," says Boesch. "However, pristine nature is becoming rarer and rarer in Africa, and if we want apes to survive in Ebola-infected areas, vaccination is one of the few realistic solutions. Peter has the stamina to bring this very challenging project to completion, and I am happy to see the concrete steps starting soon."

The vaccine the chimpanzees will receive presents little risk. Developed by Integrated BioTherapeutics Inc. in Gaithersburg, Maryland, which hopes to develop a product to protect humans against biowarfare, the vaccine contains Ebola virus proteins in what's known as a viruslike particle that cannot copy itself or cause disease. In a monkey experiment published in the 15 November 2007 Journal of Infectious Diseases, investigators from the company and the U.S. Army showed that the vaccine completely protected five monkeys against a lethal challenge dose of Ebola virus. But monkeys are not great apes, and captive chimpanzees were the next logical rung in the testing process, especially given Walsh's desire to conduct vaccination of their relatives in the wild.

New Iberia plans to immunize the chimpanzees tomorrow and then 28 days later. The researchers will collect blood samples from the animals, which will require anesthetizing them. "There's a minimal risk there," acknowledges Thomas Rowell, who heads the New Iberia facility. But he stresses that the potential benefit to chimpanzees and other great apes offsets the risks. The tests will also look for Ebola antibodies triggered by the vaccine in chimp stools, which will mirror what Walsh hopes to do in the wild.

Walsh, who has consulted many experts about how best to immunize wild apes, for safety reasons does not want to anesthetize wild apes. Instead, he plans to use darts that contain the vaccine; similar darting has been used to treat wild gorillas with antibiotics. Collection of subsequent fecal samples should allow Walsh and his team to hunt for vaccine antibodies and to pluck out DNA to identify individuals.

The New Iberia experiment is taking place against a backdrop of increasing opposition to the use of chimpanzees in biomedical research. Researchers for many decades have turned to our closest relatives to test vaccines against a wide range of diseases, including polio, hepatitis B and C, respiratory syncytial virus, and AIDS. But this "animal model" largely has fallen out of favor, primarily because the ethical landscape has changed and costs have escalated. Several countries have banned all invasive biomedical research experiments with this endangered species, and the United States and Gabon remain the only two that house captive chimps for research and allow it.

The debate about chimpanzees in research went to a full boil in the United States last year. First, Congress began considering a bill, the Great Ape Protection Act, that would altogether ban this type of biomedical research. Proponents of the bill—including the Humane Society of the United States and primatologist Jane Goodall—teamed with then-New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson and launched a high-powered campaign over the fate of a colony of 186 "research" chimpanzees that live in Alamogordo, New Mexico, and are owned by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). Scientists have not conducted studies with these chimpanzees for several years, and when NIH announced that it intended to move them to a facility in Texas that again may use them in research, a furor broke out. At the behest of three U.S. senators, the National Academy of Sciences agreed in December to analyze the current and future need for chimpanzees in biomedical research, and NIH put plans for the Alamogordo chimps on hold. New Iberia's Rowell says the analysis will likely look at the impact such a ban would have on chimpanzee health by slowing development of products like an Ebola vaccine that could help both humans and apes.

If all goes well, Walsh expects to begin tests of the Ebola vaccine in Gabon later this year.

Monday, January 3, 2011

Did President Obama Play Secret Santa to the Alamogordo chimpanzees?

NB: "The 200 chimpanzees living at Alamogordo ... should not be confused with the 266 chimpanzees STC [save the chimps] rescued in 2002 from The Coulston Foundation. The STC chimps are safe and will never be returned to biomedical research. However, Save the Chimps believes that the APF chimps, who have not been used in biomedical research for nearly ten years, deserve permanent retirement.
[STC's Statement on the APF's Chimpanzees - July 2010]
previous DNApes post can be found HERE


From the Huffington Post
Did President Obama Play Secret Santa?
BY INGRID NEWKIRK

As Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico packed his bags and prepared to relinquish his office, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave him a beautiful going-away present. It was something that the governor had journeyed to Washington back in August to ask the NIH to do: call a halt to the federal government's absurd and cruel plan to take 202 chimpanzees -- who had once involuntarily served as research subjects for the U.S. Air Force and were now supposed to be "retired" -- and subject them once again to years of experiments. I wondered on this very blog if President Obama would step in to save the chimpanzees, and perhaps now he has.

The "Alamogordo chimpanzees," as they are known, had been in limbo for years, left to languish alone at Holloman Air Force base, isolated from each other and locked in barren cells, with only a cement slab to sleep on and with nothing to see or do -- certainly sheer torture for a thinking, feeling being of any species, let alone the species closest to our own. Then, some years ago, the process of rehabilitation and socialization had begun, some 200 chimpanzees having been released to sanctuary, until, that is, the NIH put the kibosh on it. The chimpanzees had finally been given blankets, which they wrapped around themselves at night and used to cover their heads; they had started to hold hands with fellow chimpanzees through holes knocked in the walls; and they were given objects to handle and rattle and puzzle over. Plans were made to bring them to lush plots of land in Florida, surrounded by moats, where they could become themselves again, forming troupes and tribes. You can see "the ones that got away" before the NIH's foul decision here. You can even sponsor one of them, like Gromek, who was captured as a baby in Africa in 1962, wrenched away from his mother for use in the U.S. Air Force space program. Gromek spent more than 40 years in a cell and makes it clear, by turning his back, that he wants nothing to do with human beings anymore.

As recently as two months ago, NIH had stubbornly refused to listen to Mr. Richardson or anyone else appealing for mercy for the chimpanzees. But, over the months, hundreds of thousands of people have come forward to join the governor, including retired astronauts; the world's leading authority on chimpanzees, Dr. Jane Goodall; and, or so it seemed, almost everyone who has ever watched a National Geographic special or read anything about chimpanzees in the wild or in captivity. Chimpanzees are known for their ability to use tools, which they have sometimes secreted away until their zookeepers have left and then used to undo locks and escape their cages. They are known for their fierce defense of their families, their dances of great abandon in the rain and under waterfalls, and their perhaps less attractive but very "human" traits, like the propensity to lie, cheat, steal, and be craftily unfaithful to their mates.

In the end, the weight of public and professional opinion won for the apes, or was it that President Obama, who is known for taking the more diplomatic route over the swift kick up the backside that I would have favored, had a quiet word in the secretary's ear?

It has been almost 30 years since chimpanzee experimenter Dr. Alfred Prince appealed to his colleagues, gathered at an NIH symposium in Washington, to join him in recognizing chimpanzees as the intelligent, social animals they are and urged the NIH to adopt a "Chimpanzee Bill of Rights." Over the holidays, the NIH said, in announcing the cancelation of the transfer plans, that it has simply "put on hold" the plan to ship the chimpanzees to Texas -- to be treated as living test tubes, to be infected with viruses, and to have their organs biopsied -- while it studies the situation for a couple of years. But let us hope that, in reality, this announcement of a halt to the plan means that the moment has arrived when the chimpanzees' right to live unharmed and as individuals, rather than as test tubes, will be accepted as part of our evolving understanding of other forms of life.

Regrettably, 14 chimpanzees had already been trucked out of Alamogordo and into laboratory cages when the call came. They were not lucky enough to scrape by under the wire. The NIH must be asked to return them to Alamogordo and allow them to resume their long-awaited rehabilitation.

Autism and Oxytocin


If you are a long time reader you know I am a bit obsessed with oxytocin, this report came from the NPR today but I am a little confused because excessive oxytocin has also been linked with autism depending on which sideo of the brain the receptors are expressed in, see here: http://www.springerlink.com/content/m87262r738u36385/ -MA

From NPR
Scientists Test 'Trust Hormone' For Autism Fight
by JON HAMILTON

For decades, parents of children with autism have been searching for a drug or diet to treat the disorder. People with autism have impaired feelings of trust and empathy, and early studies show that the hormone oxytocin could help.

Their latest hope is the hormone oxytocin. It's often called the trust hormone or the cuddle hormone. And just to be clear, it has nothing to do with the narcotic oxycontin.

But some children with autism are already being treated with oxytocin, even though it's not approved for this purpose.

The Trust Hormone
It's no wonder parents of children with autism have high hopes for oxytocin. So do a lot of researchers, like Jennifer Bartz at Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York.

"I think it definitely has promise ... and that's why we're studying it," Bartz says.

The body releases oxytocin to produce contractions during labor and lactation in nursing mothers. Doctors also give it to help with childbirth. A few years ago, researchers realized that oxytocin also affects the brain.

Bartz says a dose given in a nasal spray seems to promote feelings of trust and empathy and bonding in both men and women. Those same feelings are often impaired in people with autism.

"Autism is associated with deficits in social cognition and social functioning," Bartz says. "People have thought, 'Well, perhaps oxytocin might be a good treatment for those deficits in autism.'"

So Bartz and others have been testing this idea. One study in her lab looked at people's ability to recognize emotions in others. She says people with autistic traits usually aren't as good at this as other people.

"But on oxytocin, their performance was indistinguishable," she says. "So we were really excited about this because it really suggests that it might be especially helpful for this population."

Too Early To Tell
But so far there are only a few small studies, and none with young children. Sue Carter, a biologist at the Brain-Body Center at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says that's not much to go on.

"If I had an autistic child, I would not try this because I wouldn't want my child to be one who we later discovered had been harmed in some way," she says.

Oxytocin affects the part of the nervous system that controls functions like heart rate, breathing and digestion. Prescription versions carry warnings about side effects, including bleeding and seizures.

Carter says that's just from short-term treatment with the hormone.

"The big problem here is that there isn't any research to speak of at all on the long-term effects of oxytocin, the effects of repeated treatments, at least in children," she says.

Carter says it's possible that long-term treatment could cause a child's body to produce less oxytocin of its own or become less responsive to the hormone.

New Study In Younger Children
Geraldine Dawson, chief science officer for the advocacy group Autism Speaks and a researcher at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, says there's a pressing need for rigorous scientific studies of the hormone.

"Some physicians are already administering oxytocin to children sometimes as young as 2 years of age," she says. "So it's very important that we good science behind that. Is it really effective? Which children is it most effective for? And importantly, are there any adverse effects?"

So Autism Speaks is funding a new study in which autistic children as young as 3 will receive oxytocin. But results are many months off.

---
NPE side note:
Treating Autism?— by Eliza Barclay

Long before oxytocin became the "cure du jour," parents and doctors began experimenting with a variety of treatments for children with autism. While some behavior and communication approaches have been thoroughly studied and are approved by the American Academy of Pediatrics, many other popular treatments are not.

According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, up to a third of parents of children with autism have tried complementary or alternative medicine for their kids. And while researchers are beginning to study some of these speculative treatments in controlled trials, many remain controversial and a few are potentially dangerous.

Some of the most popular, but untested autism treatments:

* Vitamin supplements
* Probiotic supplements
* Gluten-free (or wheat free) diet
* Casesin-free (or milk protein free) diet
* Yeast-free diet
* Chelation (a procedure that removes heavy metals like lead from the body)
* Hormones, like secretin, which controls digestion

While the CDC and other health agencies caution against unproven treatments, there are opportunities to participate in medical research trials for treating autism. Parents interested in learning more about clinical trials for experimental treatments can contact the Autism Treatment Network, which connects families with researchers.