• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

talking animals

farmkid

Commodore
Commodore
As some of you may know, I'm a scientist doing genomic and molecular biology work in a reproductive setting. In the past I've also studied how genes are regulated during embryonic development. Anyway, I have an idea for a project I think would be very interesting but the end result may be a little shocking. I don't think I'll ever actually do this project, but it's fun to think about. Here it is:

At a conference a few months ago I met a guy working with parrots. In particular, he studies a particular gene that seems to be responsible for the ability to mimic sounds--to talk. It turns out that all animals that can do so--parrots, humans, mocking birds, etc. have certain features in the regulatory regions of this particular gene, and no other animals do. It seems to be a case of convergent evolution. This particular gene controls the development and function of a particular region of the brain responsible for speech. Anyway, I'm toying with the idea of forming a collaboration with this guy to make a transgenic animal in which we swap the promoter of that particular gene with one (probably the human gene) that has those special features and see if we end up with an animal that can mimic speech. Initially, I would probably use a pig because I work in an animal science department and I have colleagues here with extensive pig cloning experience (which would be a major part of making the transgenic animal), and besides, a pig would be a good one to start with. I think doing this with a dog would probably be a better choice (I would rather have a pet than my breakfast talk to me :)), but a pig is just about as good and that's the tool I have available to me. As I think about it, I'm actually pretty well equipped for this kind of project--either I or personal acquaintances with whom I could form a collaboration can do all the work required.

My reason for writing this is I would like to get opinions of other non-scientists. I'm concerned that some people may be bothered by the idea of a talking dog or accuse me of "playing God". Making a transgenic animal is one thing, but giving that animal human-like characteristics in doing so is something else. The results of the experiment would have significant scientific merit, but I am sensitive to ethical concerns. So, what do you think? Would you be wierded out if your dog could talk to you (probably more like a parrot, not in real conversations), or do you think it would be pretty cool?
 
I think the idea is awesome, if you could ever get it to the point of an animal talking. I don't know what the purpose would be other than making a cool talking animal, but I say go for it.
 
Well, the purpose that would get it funded would be to test the hypothesis that this one gene is sufficient to impart the ability to mimic sound. Most animals have their natural sound(s) they make, and they can't do anything else. Humans, parrots, and a few others can learn new sounds and can control all the body parts involved to recreate those sounds. Dogs, for instance can learn what certain sounds mean, but they can't create them. The ability to create those sounds seems to be due to the developmental differences determined by this one gene. In fact, there have been a few cases of people with a mutation in that gene, and they are unable to speak. The experiment would be to see how much that gene actually controls. The offshoot would be talking dogs which some people might thing would be awesome pets (and would pay handsomely for, making a patent rather lucrative :techman:). However, I don't like the idea of PETA destroying lab or threatening my family.
 
Are you talking about the FOXP2 gene?

Bear in mind that it takes a LOT more than the ability to hear and match sounds--one would also need the proper structures of the throat and vocal cords to do so...either a syrinx like a parrot's, or structures that are human-like.

I think that there have been past attempts to insert the human version of FOXP2 into mice. You may want to read about those experiments, assuming you haven't already.

It also looks like--from my very non-scientific research, reading about the KE family--that FOXP2 has more effects than just sound mimicry. Grammatical order seems to be affected by it as well.

That said, abstract/higher thought is probably a whole other nut to crack, separate from the effects of FOXP2, so I don't think you'd be able to become Dr. Doolittle just from that. :p
 
Go for it! I for one welcome our new talking dog overlords.

Seriously, it sounds like a pretty interesting project that would expand our understanding of speech.
 
Are you talking about the FOXP2 gene?

Bear in mind that it takes a LOT more than the ability to hear and match sounds--one would also need the proper structures of the throat and vocal cords to do so...either a syrinx like a parrot's, or structures that are human-like.

I think that there have been past attempts to insert the human version of FOXP2 into mice. You may want to read about those experiments, assuming you haven't already.

It also looks like--from my very non-scientific research, reading about the KE family--that FOXP2 has more effects than just sound mimicry. Grammatical order seems to be affected by it as well.

That said, abstract/higher thought is probably a whole other nut to crack, separate from the effects of FOXP2, so I don't think you'd be able to become Dr. Doolittle just from that. :p
Well yes, naturally I would do a lot more reading about it before actually embarking on the project. I'm not aware of previous attempts, but then again, I haven't looked into it much more than talking to this other guy I mentioned about it. My question here was more to get others' opinions about the ethics of it to see if it's even a road I want to go down. As for the cognitive issues, I wouldn't even attempt that, and that's not the goal either. I realize that if it did work, it would be more akin to how a parrot talks, in that a parrot can mimic words but you can't have a conversation with one. Parrots can't put the sounds together to express original thoughts, for instance. I wouldn't expect a dog to be able to do that either, although if the dog could mimic sounds of speech, I suspect a dog may be able to do more than a parrot can.
 
I think that there have been past attempts to insert the human version of FOXP2 into mice.
Well, that explains a lot.

95stuart.jpg
 
OH MY!!! LOL, that is tooooooo funny! :lol:

Is that Stuart Little? (Admittedly my first thought was Ratatouille, but I know that's not right.)

As for parrots--my understanding was that in some ways they were more intelligent than dogs, more in line with chimps and dolphins than a dog.
 
I think the idea is awesome, if you could ever get it to the point of an animal talking. I don't know what the purpose would be other than making a cool talking animal, but I say go for it.

This right here.

I for one welcome our new talking animal overlords.
 
One thing I've been trying to figure out, from reading up on the FOXP2 gene, is whether it affects the ability to learn visual or signed languages. It seems clear that writing is affected, but I'm not sure whether that's because writing is an extension of a spoken language rather than an entity unto itself.
 
One thing I've been trying to figure out, from reading up on the FOXP2 gene, is whether it affects the ability to learn visual or signed languages. It seems clear that writing is affected, but I'm not sure whether that's because writing is an extension of a spoken language rather than an entity unto itself.
Would that depend on whether the written language uses phonetic signs that represent speech sounds (like most modern languages) or ideographic symbols (like Chinese)?
 
One thing I've been trying to figure out, from reading up on the FOXP2 gene, is whether it affects the ability to learn visual or signed languages. It seems clear that writing is affected, but I'm not sure whether that's because writing is an extension of a spoken language rather than an entity unto itself.

There's a family who doesn't have that gene. We discussed them briefly when I took Evolution a year ago. It was mentioned that they were very intelligent and educated. So I guess they must be able to write. I'm not sure about sign language.
 
I suppose the other thing to bear in mind about English spelling is that it's tied to a phonetic system. (Though unfortunately English spelling is pretty garbled compared to a lot of languages! ;) ) I wonder if another system, more like Chinese, one that's less dependent on phonetics, would be more approachable to someone with a mutated/missing FOXP2 gene?

While the article I read mentioned differences in IQ test results, I have a problem with an attempt to draw generalized intelligence conclusions off of that kind of test when there is a very different sort of language barrier going on.
 
^The problem with IQ tests is that they can be misleading. For example, a certain group of people (ethnic, "disability", gender or whatever) may excel better than others in certain IQ tests. It has do with how the IQ tests is designed. African-Americans may appear to underperform whites in anglocentric IQ tests. Why? They know different things (due to different life experiences in some cases), and see things differently because they often come from different cultural view of things.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top