PDA

View Full Version : Stupid Flies Live Longer


domenick2x
06-04-2008, 10:28 AM
Stupid flies live longer: study 2 hours, 5 minutes ago



GENEVA (AFP) - It doesn't pay to be smart and ignorance really is bliss if you want a long life -- at least if you're a fly, according to new research by a Swiss university.

Scientists Tadeusz Kawecki and Joep Burger at the University of Lausanne said Wednesday they had discovered a "negative correlation between an improvement in a fly's mental capacity and its longevity".

As part of their research project, the results of which are published in the journal Evolution, they divided into two a group of flies from the Basel region of northwestern Switzerland.

One half was left in a natural state while the other 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.

The flipside was 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..

"In other terms, the more the fly becomes intelligent, the shorter its lifespan," the scientists said.

This is most probably because the increase in neural activity weakens the fly's life-support systems, they speculated.

"This would explain why flies, like most other animals, have hardly developed their neural capacities," they said.

----------------------

Science rocks.

MTVike
06-04-2008, 10:57 AM
So they're saying developing a conditioned response in a fly boosts their "intelligence"? That's a stretch.

My dog has learned it's dinner time when I ring a bell. Yours finds out on its own.

So mine dog is smarter? I don't think so. My dog has simply had training. Your dog may have learned the food/bell association quicker, meaning he is actually smarter.



(I'm really going to great lengths to avoid these reports...)

domenick2x
06-04-2008, 11:20 AM
So they're saying developing a conditioned response in a fly boosts their "intelligence"? That's a stretch.

My dog has learned it's dinner time when I ring a bell. Yours finds out on its own.

So mine dog is smarter? I don't think so. My dog has simply had training. Your dog may have learned the food/bell association quicker, meaning he is actually smarter.



(I'm really going to great lengths to avoid these reports...)

Over 30 to 40 generations, these methods led to flies which clearly learned better and remembered things for longer.

My guess is they used those methods to select the 'smarter' flies and allowed them to selectively breed. Thus in 30-40 generations, you have smarter flies.

How much smarter is a matter of Science.

LSU
06-04-2008, 11:24 AM
I'm not fly expert. But based on the limited results presented in the article, I'd have a hard time choosing their conclusion over the thought that the "training" they did made the flies dependent on said signals for feeding and what not. In other words, they became lazy and lost some ability to figure things out on their own.

Quite the opposite of "getting smarter".

domenick2x
06-04-2008, 11:38 AM
I'm not fly expert. But based on the limited results presented in the article, I'd have a hard time choosing their conclusion over the thought that the "training" they did made the flies dependent on said signals for feeding and what not. In other words, they became lazy and lost some ability to figure things out on their own.

Quite the opposite of "getting smarter".
My other thought would concern the genetic diversity of the flies. If you are working from a smaller group initially for the 'smart' batch, you could run into issues there.

Good Scientists should be correcting for that, but I'm not going to bother digging into the study.

LSU
06-04-2008, 11:41 AM
My other thought would concern the genetic diversity of the flies. If you are working from a smaller group initially for the 'smart' batch, you could run into issues there.

Good Scientists should be correcting for that, but I'm not going to bother digging into the study.


Meh, it may not be in this study. But it would definitely be something that *should* be looked at in follow up studies.