Comment Re:like wow.. (Score 2, Informative) 188
As someone who works in the lab that just released this paper (but who was not an author), it's interesting to read the discussion about whether this counts as "dumb research" that shouldn't be funded.
A little background: whether or not these mouse vocalizations count as "song" is in no way the primary focus of our lab. Our work actually focuses on using the pheromone-detection system of mice (aka the accessory olfactory system) as a (relatively) simple model system in which questions about pattern recognition and memory formation can be asked. The idea isn't that how mice recognize other mice and what they do next is intrinsically interesting, but rather that questions of how mammalian brains put together circuitry that can recognize and remember patterns in incoming sensory information is both intrinsically interesting and in the long run highly pertinent to many areas of medical research (ranging from exploring the causes of autism to developing treatments for Alzheimer's) - and that this system happens to be one of the most accessible systems in which these phenomenon can be studied.
This paper was actually a complete tangent to this primary focus, which came about when my boss and a coworker were trying to use these vocalizations as a behavioral indicator of whether a male mouse thinks it is or is not detecting the presence of a female (something that can help us understand the rest of our lab's data). As long as they were recording the vocalizations, however, they figured they might as well look at them a bit - and were startled to discover how complex they were. Thinking that this it was possible that knowing about this complexity could prove useful to other researchers who study stuff more related to this kind of thing (for example, the study of how birdsong develops is proving to be really fruitful right now - but if you could do this kind of work in an animal where genetic modification is becoming routine, the pace could be improved even more), they submitted a paper that contained primarily an analysis of the original point of the research but with an additional section analyzing the vocalizations. It was the journal itself that suggested that it made more sense to publish the analysis of the vocalizations as a separate paper.
We in the lab have all been rather taken aback by the press coverage of this story. Seeing as it was in many ways a tangent to the main purpose of the lab (and not actually a part of ANY grant, just to answer the implied question in a comment a bit further down), it's a bit startling to see it become a popular story. It's really somewhat frustrating to realize just how much a science story's media coverage is determined by the "cuteness" of the story - in this case, the popularity of the story seems to be due primarily to the fact that 1) all of the words involved are easy to understand (everyone knows what mice are, and knows what singing is...), 2) people like to hear about things that have to do with mating and/or relationships and/or pheromones, and 3) the mental picture of mice singing songs is cute.
Partly because of this, we've been wondering a bit what the impact of this coverage will be on the public's perception of the utility of science funding. I absolutely believe that funding of basic science is in the long run the best way to promote major advances with real utility - the discovery of DNA through an offshoot of what seemed to be obscure molecular work and its current centrality to the majority of medical research is one of the best examples - and I certainly wouldn't be working the hours I work for the pay I receive if I didn't believe in what I was doing. But even in the 4-5 years I've been at this institution the decrease in the availability of funds for basic research has been obvious, and I worry a lot about the extent to which this concept is communicated to the public & what failures in this realm will mean for future funding of basic research.
If anything, this recent experience of how the media covers science has made me discouraged. To the extent that the media is primarily covering stories that are "cute", and even within those stories playing up the cute aspects of it much more than the original context or the real meaning of the stories, I think it poses a real threat to the public's understanding of the purpose of the research our tax dollars funds.
I'd love to hear thoughts, though, on how people who are either on the research side or the consumer side of all of this could help sway the process a bit more towards better coverage....!
A little background: whether or not these mouse vocalizations count as "song" is in no way the primary focus of our lab. Our work actually focuses on using the pheromone-detection system of mice (aka the accessory olfactory system) as a (relatively) simple model system in which questions about pattern recognition and memory formation can be asked. The idea isn't that how mice recognize other mice and what they do next is intrinsically interesting, but rather that questions of how mammalian brains put together circuitry that can recognize and remember patterns in incoming sensory information is both intrinsically interesting and in the long run highly pertinent to many areas of medical research (ranging from exploring the causes of autism to developing treatments for Alzheimer's) - and that this system happens to be one of the most accessible systems in which these phenomenon can be studied.
This paper was actually a complete tangent to this primary focus, which came about when my boss and a coworker were trying to use these vocalizations as a behavioral indicator of whether a male mouse thinks it is or is not detecting the presence of a female (something that can help us understand the rest of our lab's data). As long as they were recording the vocalizations, however, they figured they might as well look at them a bit - and were startled to discover how complex they were. Thinking that this it was possible that knowing about this complexity could prove useful to other researchers who study stuff more related to this kind of thing (for example, the study of how birdsong develops is proving to be really fruitful right now - but if you could do this kind of work in an animal where genetic modification is becoming routine, the pace could be improved even more), they submitted a paper that contained primarily an analysis of the original point of the research but with an additional section analyzing the vocalizations. It was the journal itself that suggested that it made more sense to publish the analysis of the vocalizations as a separate paper.
We in the lab have all been rather taken aback by the press coverage of this story. Seeing as it was in many ways a tangent to the main purpose of the lab (and not actually a part of ANY grant, just to answer the implied question in a comment a bit further down), it's a bit startling to see it become a popular story. It's really somewhat frustrating to realize just how much a science story's media coverage is determined by the "cuteness" of the story - in this case, the popularity of the story seems to be due primarily to the fact that 1) all of the words involved are easy to understand (everyone knows what mice are, and knows what singing is...), 2) people like to hear about things that have to do with mating and/or relationships and/or pheromones, and 3) the mental picture of mice singing songs is cute.
Partly because of this, we've been wondering a bit what the impact of this coverage will be on the public's perception of the utility of science funding. I absolutely believe that funding of basic science is in the long run the best way to promote major advances with real utility - the discovery of DNA through an offshoot of what seemed to be obscure molecular work and its current centrality to the majority of medical research is one of the best examples - and I certainly wouldn't be working the hours I work for the pay I receive if I didn't believe in what I was doing. But even in the 4-5 years I've been at this institution the decrease in the availability of funds for basic research has been obvious, and I worry a lot about the extent to which this concept is communicated to the public & what failures in this realm will mean for future funding of basic research.
If anything, this recent experience of how the media covers science has made me discouraged. To the extent that the media is primarily covering stories that are "cute", and even within those stories playing up the cute aspects of it much more than the original context or the real meaning of the stories, I think it poses a real threat to the public's understanding of the purpose of the research our tax dollars funds.
I'd love to hear thoughts, though, on how people who are either on the research side or the consumer side of all of this could help sway the process a bit more towards better coverage....!
