http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/2/hi/science/nature/4265763.stm

Key to intelligence questioned

Thought might not be dependent on language, according to new research published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. A UK team has shown that patients who have lost the ability to understand grammar can still complete hard sums. This suggests mathematical reasoning can exist without language. The study undermines the assumption that language is the key quality that makes our thought processes more advanced than those of other animals. "We are kicking against the claim that it is language that allows you to do other high order intellectual functions," lead research Rosemary Varley, from the University of Sheffield , told the BBC News website.

The researchers made the discovery by studying three patients who were suffering from severe aphasia - they had lost the ability to understand, or produce, grammatically correct language. For example, although they understood the words "lion", "hunted" and "man", they could not tell the difference between the sentences "The lion hunted the man" and "The man hunted the lion". But when they were presented with sums like 52 minus 11 and 11 minus 52,which were structured in a similar way, they had no problem. We are kicking against the claim that it is language that allows you to do other high order intellectual functions.

 Rosemary Varley

"Our patients can clearly do those problems which show the same reversibility," said Dr Varley. "So that shows they have a good insight into these very abstract principles. "Despite profound language deficits these guys showed advanced cognitive abilities, which indicates considerable autonomy between language and thinking." The new findings contradict previous studies which used brain imaging techniques to work out how people process mathematics. A French-led team found that calculations lit up the left frontal lobe, an area of the brain known to make associations with words. But Dr Varley is not convinced by this research.

"The problem with functional brain imaging is you don't really know what your subjects are doing when they are in the scanner," she said. "If you give them a sum they might be reading the numbers aloud in their head. "But that is not to say that language is necessarily a part of mathematics."

If Dr Varley is correct, it again raises the question of what makes humans different. According to many academics, people are much cleverer than other animals because language gives them a higher order of thought. But these findings suggest cleverness and language might not be as closely connected as once assumed.

Elizabeth Brannon, of Columbia University , US , wrote in a commentary article: "A promising avenue for further exploring this hypothesis is to look for precursors of social reasoning and mathematical syntax in nonhuman animals

After fifteen years, the 'McLibel Two' can toast victory in their battle
with a burger behemoth

By Stephen Castle in Brussels

16 February 2005

Vindicated in the longest court battle in British legal history, David
Morris and Helen Steel celebrated in the Strand yesterday - not with the
customary champagne outside the High Court, but with a demonstration
outside McDonald's.

For 15 years the two activists from north London fought a case against the
world's biggest burger chain which seemed doomed. Yesterday, the Goliath
of the fast-food world and the Government were humbled when the European
Court of Human Rights ruled that the two did not have a fair trial.

Mr Morris, a former postman, hailed the ruling as a "total victory",
adding: "It has been an empowering experience because it shows that
ordinary people like us can stand up against seemingly impossible odds and
win".

True though that may be, it does not explain the importance of yesterday's
court victory. The determination of two activists has shaken a
multinational, stirred a debate about food and health and prompted a
review of British libel law. Because of the "McLibel Two", the rich and
powerful may no longer be able to go to court safe in the knowledge that
everything is stacked in their favour.

One of the most remarkable stories in British legal history is also the
tale of how McDonald's committed one of the biggest own goals in the
annals of corporate public relations.

The story began when a pamphlet, "What's Wrong with McDonald's", was
distributed which accused McDonald's of selling unhealthy food. Neither Mr
Morris, now 50, nor Ms Steel, now 40, wrote the six-page flyer but both
were members of an organisation which produced it called London Greenpeace
(not related to the environmental group, Greenpeace).

When they served a series of libel writs against activists, McDonald's had
little reason to suspect the scale of their error. Three of the accused
apologised to escape legal action and even Mr Morris and Ms Steel, who
fought on, believed they were destined to lose.

Mr Morris said yesterday: "We were told we did not have a cat in hell's
chance ... but we decided that we had to fight because McDonald's were
suing a lot of people and creating a climate of fear." With only
occasional sessions of free advice from a sympathetic barrister, Keir
Starmer, the two were forced back on their own resources. They had to
co-ordinate their defence on Tube journeys on the way to court. The trial,
which came to court in 1994, included 313 days of testimony, eight weeks
of closing speeches and six months of deliberation.

Mr Starmer said yesterday that the defendants "were extremely courageous.
Most people would have backed down and everyone else, in fact, did."

In the end the judge endorsed the leaflet's claim that McDonald's paid low
wages to its workers, was responsible for cruelty to some of the animals
used in its food products and exploited children through advertising
campaigns.


Nevertheless, the verdict was that the company had been libelled and it
was awarded
60,000 in damages, later reduced to
40,000 on appeal. For the multinational this was a pyrrhic victory; never
before had the corporation been subjected to so much scrutiny. Mark
Stephens, a solicitor who advised the "McLibel Two", argues that, without
their stand, the film Super Size Me [which shows the health effects of
eating a diet of McDonald's food], could never have been shown in the UK .


Yesterday's ruling in Strasbourg was against the Government rather than
McDonald's because the "McLibel Two" successfully claimed that they were
deprived a fair trial. The judges found that the "denial of legal aid to
the applicants had deprived them of the opportunity to present their case
effectively before the court".


Though it is possible under recent British law for defendants in libel
cases to receive legal aid, Mr Morris's lawyers say that none have so far
done so. If it is to comply with this finding [which it must], the
Government will have to ensure that in future a wider category of
defendants are eligible for state-funded legal advice. Second, the court
found that the damages were disproportionate, and Mr Morris and Ms Steel
were awarded financial damages of
20,000 (
13,700) and
15,000 respectively.


Mr Starmer concluded: "This has gone from three or four people in anoraks
standing in the rain in Finchley on a Saturday afternoon, to the European
Court in Strasbourg . Companies know that people without money cannot fight
libel cases so they use the law to threaten everyone. It was only when
someone stood up and said, 'We have nothing to lose', that they went from
a position of weakness to one of strength."

FOOD FIGHT: TAKING ON McDONALD'S


1986: London Greenpeace, not connected with Greenpeace International,
begins a campaign against the fast food industry, choosing McDonald's as
the symbolic target. Mr Morris and Ms Steel distribute their leaflet
outside a McDonald's in London .

1990: McDonald's issues libel writ. Judges say later the chain had $30bn (
15.6bn) global sales in 1995. Mr Morris is earning65 a week; Ms Steel is out of work.

1994: Trial begins on 28 June. Denied legal aid, the campaigners represent
themselves.

1997: Verdict is delivered on 19 June, making it the longest trial in
English legal history. Judges uphold some allegations but rule the
campaigners libelled McDonald's and order them to pay
60,000 in damages.

1999: The original verdict is confirmed on appeal but damages are cut to
40,000.

2000: The pair tell European Court of Human Rights the trial breached
their rights to a fair trial and freedom of expression.

2004: The two are granted legal aid and the action is heard. They have
still not paid the damages.

Yesterday: The campaigners' appeal is successful.

15 February 2005 19:34

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-ruby16nov16,1,1672848.story

November 16, 2004

Soft Heart Under Her Thick Skin?
Observers look for signs of emotion in Ruby, back at the L.A. Zoo after a
reportedly unhappy stay in Tennessee .

By Patricia Ward Biederman, Times Staff Writer

Now that Ruby the elephant is back at the Los Angeles Zoo, questions
remain: Is she happy? And how can you tell?
The 43-year-old African elephant came home this weekend after 1 1/2 years
at the Knoxville Zoo. Ruby's planned transfer to Knoxville , where it was
hoped she would be a good maternal role model for other elephants,
prompted animal rights activist Catherine Doyle to sue to keep Ruby in Los
Angeles and later for her return, claiming the elephant was sad and lonely
in Tennessee .

The elephant's return was hastened by a videotape, shot in Knoxville by
Gretchen Wyler of the Hollywood office of the Humane Society of the United
States and televised in July, showing Ruby standing alone and swaying,
according to Wyler, like "a desperate elephant."
But experts don't agree on what animals feel. Naturalist Charles Darwin
wrote about animal emotions, but for much of the 20th century to say an
elephant was sad was to be guilty of anthropomorphism, the unscientific
projection of human feelings on animals.
Today, an increasing number of scientists believe that animals have
emotions.
Whether those emotions are comparable to human ones is another matter.
"Do animals have emotions? Most people are willing to say they do. Do we
know much more than that? Not really," said John Capitanio, associate
director for research at the California National Primate Research Center
and a professor of psychology at UC Davis.
Understanding is fairly limited even about human feelings. "There's not
much known about positive emotions in humans compared to negative
emotions. We know a lot about fear and a lot about anger," emotions that
cause measurable physiological changes, Capitanio said.
In animals, said Capitanio, who has studied individual differences in
rhesus macaques, "we don't know what love looks like, in spite of what
animal activists would say. When we see a chimp cuddling its infant, we
don't know if its internal feeling state is the same as what humans feel
when they embrace their children."
"It's quite a stretch for humans to look at an animal and interpret their
behavior," said Michael Hutchins, director of conservation and science for
the American Zoo and Aquarium Assn. in Silver Spring , Md.
"Animals can't talk to us so they can't tell us how they feel."
The inability of animals to speak there's the rub.
Everybody knows that Los Angeles Mayor James K. Hahn is happy that Ruby is
back in L.A. He said as much.
"She's in good spirits, and we're glad to have her back," Hahn told the
media Sunday, as he stood outside Ruby's temporary enclosure at the Los
Angeles Zoo.
But because animals cannot describe their feelings, human attempts to link
animal behavior with specific emotional states are "purely speculative,"
Hutchins said. "An animal might look agitated, but it might not be. It
might be playing. It might look like it's playing, but be quite
aggressive."
In assuming they know what animals are feeling, humans may be projecting
their own emotions onto them: "Animals, in some ways, are a neutral
palette on which we paint our needs, feelings and view of the world,"
Capitanio said.
Marc Bekoff, a professor of animal behavior at the University of Colorado
at Boulder , said he has received roughly 50 e-mails about Ruby in the last
few days.
An animal activist as well as a scientist, Bekoff said emotions such as
sadness are clearly reflected in an animal's behavior: "They mope around,
they don't eat."
Such behavior can be read in animals much as it can be in humans, he said:
"Usually when we see a person who seems to be sad, they are sad."
Bekoff doesn't believe Ruby belongs in any zoo, given her apparent
unhappiness in Knoxville .
"Do you send an unhappy kid back home without treating them?" he asked.
"They should put her in a sanctuary and see how she does. She doesn't like
zoos."
Bekoff said that the intelligence and emotional complexity of elephants
and other large mammals is what makes them such crowd pleasers: "People
can look at these animals and see that they have feelings," he said.
As for Ruby, L.A. Zoo Director John Lewis said she has been doing well
since her return to Los Angeles .
In describing her, he talked more about behavior than about feelings.
"She seems to be fine," he said. She is in an enclosure that is new to
her, and yet she is very calm, alert, curious.
"She's in a pen right next to Tara ," Lewis said, referring to another
African elephant. "They're investigating each other, touching trunks.
There's been no aggressive behavior either way, just touching, smelling
and talking a little bit to each other. That's about it."
But, Lewis said, he went to see Ruby in Tennessee and believes she was
well-adjusted there.
"She didn't look depressed or withdrawn in any way," said Lewis, who
observed her touching trunks with the other cows and "flirting with the
bull." At one point, she plucked hay off his back and ate it.
"That's a very trusting thing between animals," Lewis said.
Activists have said that Ruby was sad to leave Los Angeles and her
longtime elephant friend, Gita.
Ruby had left for Knoxville before Lewis became zoo director, but he has
seen videotape of Ruby and Gita together and thinks reports of bonding
between the two may have been exaggerated.
"Obviously, they're compatible and get along," said Lewis. "But I saw Ruby
doing almost the same things with the elephants in Knoxville ."
Ruby and Gita "weren't bonded to the exclusion of other animals or to the
exclusion of life without each other. I don't buy that at all."
As to how Ruby feels, she's not talking.

 WASHINGTON-The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has notified the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) that it will investigate charges by PCRM that Ohio State University has violated federal animal welfare regulations as part of its controversial Spinal Cord Injury Techniques Training Course.

The investigation comes in response to PCRM’s complaints that OSU ignored federal regulations requiring government-funded research institutions using animals to “minimize pain and distress” “minimize the number of animals used,” and to “consider non-animal alternatives.”

Nicknamed “Cruelty 101,” the OSU spinal injury techniques course requires students to surgically expose the spinal cords of mice and rats-a technique known as laminectomy-and drop weights on them to simulate human spinal cord injuries. Over the course of the three-week class, the 269 injured mice and rats are subjected to additional surgeries, invasive laboratory procedures, and physically demanding behavioral exercises before they are killed. The course is funded in part by NIH.

The university states that the class teaches a ‘standardized’ methodology for inflicting spinal cord damage.

“These procedures are as unnecessary as they are cruel,” says Neal Barnard, M.D., president of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. “Current spinal injury research using human neural cell lines, impact studies on human cadavers, and clinical trials, make the OSU course not only pointless, but redundant.”

While rats and mice are not protected under the Animal Welfare Act, all laboratory animals are guaranteed some measure of protection under provisions of the Public Health Service Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (PHS).

In 2002, PCRM was instrumental in stopping NIH-funded experiments by OSU researcher Dr. Michael Podell, who infected cats with feline immunodeficiency virus and injected them with methamphetamine (“speed”) in an attempt to create an animal model for HIV-positive humans using drugs.

Ohio State University received a grant from the NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke to fund the spinal cord injury techniques course over five years. The next class is scheduled July 15-20, 2005 . This will be the third year OSU has offered this course. University officials have so far refused to meet with PCRM and local humane organizations to discuss their concerns about the course.

Founded in 1985, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is a nonprofit health organization that promotes preventive medicine, especially good nutrition. PCRM also conducts clinical research studies, opposes unethical human experimentation, and promotes alternatives to animal research.

* * * * *

American Authorities Infiltrate
a Cruel, Bloody Tradition
By Danielle Ring - daniellering@mindspring.com
www.daniellering.net

The long, dirt roads in the deep South can seem endless as they wind past untended fields and lonely houses. In the most rural of areas, the roads may lead you to tin shacks which barely contain the hell inside. Squeals reverberate off the walls; furious barking pierces the night. As you get closer, the acrid smell instinctively draws your hand to shield your nose and mouth.

Inside, a group of adults and children crowd in a semi-circle, patiently waiting for something. A man stands at a podium with a microphone, making some sort of introduction. "Angel here is a three-year-old bitch, bred and trained by Ray Jackson. She hates hogs and has a record of pinning in three seconds. Time to place your bets."

As people begin to move around, you notice a dirt-filled ring. There is a gate at one end and a chute at the other. Soon, everyone is again standing at the ring and you find a place along the front. The chute opens and a frightened hog slides through, landing with a thud. He shakes and appears to be injured. His ears and tail have tear marks and his tusks look as if they have been sawed off. The man with the dog in the pen releases the leash and in three seconds, the hog is squealing in pain as the dog's jaws latch onto his neck. Both adults and children cheer while the hog continues to scream. In a few minutes, the scene will repeat itself with another trained dog and another terrified hog.

Known as hog dog rodeos, these events have provided people with "entertainment" for at least two decades. Feral hogs are plentiful in places like South Carolina , Alabama , Mississippi , Florida , Georgia , Texas