Chimpanzees are aping robots and scientists are scratching their heads
Researchers found that chimpanzees yawned and lay down in response to yawns made by the android robot, suggesting that observing another individual yawn may act as a cue to rest.
The study involved exposing 14 adult chimpanzees to an android head that simulated facial expressions, including yawns, gaping, and neutral expressions.
Eight of the 14 chimpanzees yawned in response to the android's "yawn" expression, with the highest contagion occurring when the android displayed a fully wide-open mouth.
The findings shed light on primates' susceptibility to contagiously induced behaviours, but the exact biological mechanisms surrounding contagious yawning remain unclear, prompting further research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Dogs prefer certain TV shows depending on their personality type, researchers find
Dogs prefer certain TV shows depending on whether their personality is nervous or excitable, researchers in the US have revealed. Auburn University experts in Alabama recruited 453 dogs, aged from four months to 16 years old, and their owners to record their responses to different TV shows. 'The survey investigated trends in the dogs' TV viewing habits, including whether the owner tried to teach the dog to watch TV, the average number of hours per week the owner's TV is switched on, and the average number of seconds the dog pays attention to the TV,' researchers told The Times. 'Dogs who were more excitable were more likely to exhibit behaviours suggesting an expectation that the television stimulus exists in the 3D environment,' said the researchers, whose study was published in Scientific Reports. 'Furthermore, dogs who displayed more fearful tendencies were more likely to respond to the non-animal stimuli, for example, car [or] doorbell.' Last year, scientists revealed the trick to getting your pet dog to understand what you are saying. The research, published in October, claimed people should try speaking a little bit slower. It concludes that dogs' comprehension of human speech relies on a slower tempo. Despite not being able to produce human sounds, man's best friend is capable of responding to human speech. When people talk slowly, it matches the receptive abilities of animals, allowing dogs to better understand commands, researchers say. Writing in the Plos Biology journal, the authors said: 'Comparative exploration of neural and behavioural responses to speech reveals that comprehension in dogs relies on a slower speech rhythm tracking than humans', even though dogs are equally sensitive to speech content and prosody.' They hypothesise that people may adjust their speech rate 'as means to improve communication efficacy'. Eloise Deaux, of the University of Geneva in Switzerland, and colleagues analysed the vocal sounds of 30 dogs, and the sounds of 27 humans across five languages speaking to other people, and 22 humans across those languages speaking to dogs.
The Guardian
3 hours ago
- The Guardian
‘A disaster for all of us': US scientists describe impact of Trump cuts
'Our ability to respond to climate change, the biggest existential threat facing humanity, is totally adrift,' said Sally Johnson, an Earth scientist who has spent the past two decades helping collect, store and distribute data at Nasa (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and Noaa (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). Donald Trump's assault on science – but particularly climate science – has led to unprecedented funding cuts and staff layoffs across federally funded agencies and programs, threatening to derail research tackling the most pressing issues facing Americans and humanity more broadly. A generation of scientific talent is also on the brink of being lost, with unprecedented political interference at what were previously evidence-driven agencies jeopardizing the future of US industries and economic growth. Johnson was among scores of scientists conducting vital research across a range of fields from infectious diseases, robotics, education, computer science and the climate crisis, who responded to a Guardian online callout to share their experiences about the impact of the Trump administration's cuts to science funding. Many said they had already had funding slashed or programs terminated, while others fear that cuts are inevitable and are beginning to search for alternative work – either overseas or outside science. So far, the cuts have led to a 60% reduction in Johnson's team, and fear is mounting over the future of 30 years of climate data and expertise as communities across the country are battered by increasingly destructive extreme weather events. 'We won't be able to afford to continue providing the free and quality tools and services to make our data stores searchable, viewable, usable, and accessible. We might not even be able to afford to keep all the data … this will mean worse forecasts and less effective search and rescue responses leading to unnecessary and avoidable loss of life,' said Johnson (not her real name). Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Obbba) calls for a 56% cut to the current $9bn National Science Foundation (NSF) budget, as well as a 73% reduction in staff and fellowships – with graduate students among the hardest hit. The NSF is the premier federal investor in basic science and engineering, and more than 1,650 grants have also been terminated, according to Grant Watch, a non-profit tracking federally funded research grants under the Trump administration. At the behest of Trump, the hardest hit are studies aimed at addressing the unequal impact of the climate crisis and other environmental hazards, as well as any projects perceived to have a connection to diversity, equity or inclusion (DEI). An anthropologist who researches the impact of floods and cyclones on public health and food supplies in Madagascar, which is among the most vulnerable nations in the world to the climate crisis but contributed virtually nothing to the catastrophe, is leaving Johns Hopkins for Oxford University after funding for the remainder of her fellowship was threatened. 'I am devastated to leave family, friends and the grad students I am mentoring in the US, but this seemed like the only way to continue work I've been pursuing for 10+ years. I am working on improving climate mitigation and adaptation in an African country. After Trump was elected, the writing was on the wall. There is no way I can write grant applications that will be acceptable to this government.' A veteran infectious diseases researcher at Ohio State University was forced to abandon a clinical trial for a new medication to treat hypoxemic respiratory failure in Covid patients after the National Institute of Health (NIH) terminated funding midway through the study. The decision will save $500,000, but $1.5m had already been spent on the trial which researchers hoped would lead to new treatment options for the million or so people hospitalized with respiratory failure each year as a result of flu, Covid and other infections. The trial would have to be repeated from the start, in order to seek approval from the FDA. 'This is a disaster for all of us. We're all depressed and living on a knife-edge, because we know we could lose the rest of our grants any day. These people really hate us yet all we've done is work hard to make people's health better. A flu pandemic is coming for us, what's happening in cattle is truly scary and all we have is oxygen and hope for people,' said the Ohio scientist. Between 90 and 95% of their lab work is funded through the NIH. So far, more than 3,500 grants have been terminated or frozen by the NIH. Trump's budget proposes slashing NIH funding by more than 40%. The majority of scientists who got in touch described feeling anxious and despondent – about their own work if the cuts continue, but also about what seems an inevitable loss of talent and knowledge which could upend the US position as a global leader in scientific endeavors and ricochet for years to come. The brain drain is real. The Australian Academy of Science is leading the country's efforts to proactively recruit top US-based scientists, creating a new global talent program that includes research funding, access to Australian research infrastructure, fast-track visas and a relocation package. At least 75 scientists applied in the first three months of the program, the AAS told the Guardian. The Trump administration has accused universities, without evidence, of promoting leftwing radical thinking and research, but federal funds train scientists who go on to work for the oil and gas, mining, chemical, big tech and other industries. Several respondents said the private sector was also starting to feel the knock-on effect of Trump's cuts and tariffs. Wessel van den Bergh, a materials scientist with a PhD, was working on battery storage technology for a Chinese-owned renewable energy company in Massachusetts. He was laid off in early June amid Trump's tariff chaos and attacks on science and renewables, and is struggling to find work. 'When I started my PhD program, America was at the leading edge of batteries/energy storage but this is no longer true due to tariffs, funding cuts, and aggression towards green alternatives. Rather, the US has ceded its hard-earned expertise to other countries such as Korea, Japan and China,' Van den Bergh said. Trump supports the expansion of fossil fuels and has received millions of dollars in campaign donations from the oil, gas and coal industry, while his budget legislation terminated incentives for solar and wind energy. 'It's crushing, I don't see a clear path ahead any more. I no longer feel this country values science. It's genuinely heartbreaking to build your vocation to something that could genuinely benefit the world for it to be quashed for imagined political victories … especially at a time where these kinds of technologies are the only way out of the climate crisis,' said Van den Bergh. Separately, the Nuclear Physics Laboratory (NPL) at the University of Illinois got in touch after the Guardian's recent investigation into the chaos at the NSF. For almost 100 years the NPL has been at the forefront of cutting-edge science in drug discovery, cancer treatments, PET scans and other medical diagnoses, and semiconductor testing, with researchers playing a key role in world-renowned institutions like Cern and Los Alamos. It's a major hub for nurturing and training future talent, and at least 50 students have graduated with PhDs in the past 20 years. It was here that Rosalind Yalow got her PhD in nuclear physics in 1945, and then went on to invent radioimmunoassay – a technique to detect minute amounts of hormones, viruses and drugs in the blood which revolutionized medical testing for conditions such as diabetes. Yalow was awarded the Nobel prize in 1977, only the second woman to win it. The lab was recently informed that the NSF will reduce funding that supports graduates students from $15m for four years to $1m for one year. 'Our group in nuclear physics at Illinois actually predates the founding of the NSF in 1950, and we have a long history of both producing scientists and accelerator technologies that have had an impact on huge numbers of people,' said Anne M Sickles, professor of nuclear physics. 'If you cut the funding to the people who are doing the work right now, you don't know what they would have innovated in 10 years or 15 years or 32 years like Rosalind Yalow. We don't know what we're losing.' The NFS declined to comment, while the office of management and budget and NIH did not respond.
The Guardian
9 hours ago
- The Guardian
Scientific publishing needs urgent reform to retain trust in research process
The dysfunctions of scientific publishing that your article so aptly captured derive from two forces (Quality of scientific papers questioned as academics 'overwhelmed' by the millions published, 13 July) – researchers are incentivised to publish as much as possible and publishers make more money if they publish more papers. Artificial intelligence will not fix this. Churning out more papers faster has got us to this place. Given current incentives, AI will mean churning them out even faster. A paper written by AI, peer-reviewed by AI and read only by AI creates a self-reinforcing loop that holds no real value, erodes trust in science and voids scientific inquiry of meaning. Research is driven by our wonder at the world. That needs to be central to any reform of scientific publishing. Instead, the driving forces can be addressed by two measures. Incentives for researchers can and should prioritise quality over quantity, and meaning over metrics. And publishers' extortionate fees (fuelling profits of more than 30%) can and should be refused by those who pay them. Both the incentives and publishers' contracts are governed by the funders of research – universities, research councils and foundations. Their welcome attempts to engage with these problems through Plan S, which aims to make research publications open access, have not succeeded because these have been captured by publishers that twisted them to their advantage, making yet more profits. There are examples, often beyond the global north, of scientific publishing that is not geared towards generating profits for publishers. SciELO (which is centred on Latin America) is one, and the Global Diamond Open Access Alliance champions many others. We have much to learn from them. Research is in a parlous state in the English-speaking world – at risk for the truths it tells in the US, and for its expense in Britain. Funders have the power radically to alter the incentives scientists face and to lower the rents extracted by BrockingtonIcrea (Catalan Institution for Research and Advanced Studies)Paolo CrosettoGrenoble Applied Economics LaboratoryPablo Gomez BarreiroScience services and laboratories, Kew Gardens Your article on the overwhelming volume of scientific papers rightly highlights a system under pressure. But the deeper dysfunction lies not only in quantity, but in the economics of scholarly publishing, where publishers cash in on researchers' dependence on journals for academic careers. The academic publishing market systematically diverts public research funds into shareholder profits. Open access was meant to democratise knowledge, but its original vision has been co-opted by commercial publishers. It was BioMed Central (now Springer-Nature) that first introduced the 'author pays' model to secure revenue streams. With article processing charges (APCs) now being the dominant open-access model, authors routinely pay between £2,000 and £10,000 to publish a single article, even if the cost of producing it does not exceed £1,000. Some of us attended the recent Royal Society conference on the future of scientific publishing, where its vice-president, Sir Mark Walport, reminded the audience that academic publishing isn't free and that if we want to remove paywalls for both authors and readers, someone must pay the bills. We argue that there is already enough money in the system, which allows leading publishers such as Elsevier to generate profit margins of 38%. Our most recent estimates show that researchers paid close to $9bn in APCs to six publishers in 2019-23, with annual amounts nearly tripling in these five years. These most recent estimates far exceed the $1bn estimated for 2015-18 that your article cites. As further emphasised at the Royal Society meeting, publishers monetise the current role that journal prestige plays in hiring, promotion and funding. Therefore, in order to make open access sustainable and to put a stop to these extractive business practices, it is essential to reform academic assessment and decouple it from knowledge HausteinAssociate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of Ottawa; Co-director, Scholarly Communications LabEric ScharesEngineering and collection analysis librarian, University Library, Iowa State UniversityLeigh-Ann ButlerScholarly communication librarian, University of OttawaJuan Pablo Alperin Associate professor, School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University; Scientific director, Public Knowledge Project Academic publishing is creaking at the seams. Too many articles are published and too many journals don't add real value. Researchers are incentivised to publish quantity over quality, and some journal publishers benefit from this. This detracts from the excellent, world-changing and increasingly open-access research that we all need to flourish – and that quality publishers cultivate. Generative AI only scales up these pressures, as your article shows. Something has to change. That's why Cambridge University Press has spent the last few months collaborating with researchers, librarians, publishers, funders and learned societies across the globe on a radical and pragmatic review of the open research publishing ecosystem, which we will publish in the autumn. Focusing on generative AI or on low-quality journals alone is insufficient. We need a system-wide approach that reviews and rethinks the link between publishing, reward and recognition; equity in research dissemination; research integrity; and one that takes technological change seriously. The system is about to break. We need creative thinking and commitment from all players to fix it and to build something HillManaging director, Cambridge University Press
