Sanders, Laura. "He's No Rat, He's My Brother." Science News. N.p., n.d. Web. 12
Dec. 2011.
He%E2%80%99s_no_rat%2C_he%E2%80%99s_my_brother>.
At the University of Chicago, scientists have discovered that rats have the urge to help out another rat in distress. This urge, scientists suggest, is driven by empathy like humans. The scientists wanted to test this theory since rats are very social animals. The team working on the experiment put on lab rat in a clear, small cage while another rate was put outside of the cage. The small cage had a door but could only be opened from the outside. At first, the rat would circle the cage and then bite or dig at it. After several days, the rat learned how to open the cage and then freed the rat inside the small cage. Scientists are very confident in this theory regarding that the rat’s behavior was “intentional.” The scientists then did a controlled experiment with a rat being place outside of an empty cage and found that the rat took no interest to it. In addition, scientist put stuffed animals into the cage but found that the rats took no interest to them either. To further this study, researchers designed another experience in which a rat was forced to choose between liberating a trapped rat and opening a cage filled with chocolate. The results were astounding – the rats were equally likely to free the rat as they were to eat the chocolate. But not only that, a majority of the rats who chose the chocolate left some for the rat in distress.
This study is a huge breakthrough in animal behavior. We figure that humans help another distressed human out of empathy and now we know that rats feel empathetic too. Also, this may explain why rats can reproduce and survive better than any other land mammal on Earth. This study shows that humans aren’t the only ones who feel sorry for another living being.
I found this article to be interesting and informative. I always knew that rats were smart and durable animals but I never knew that their behavior is sometimes based off of emotion. However, I thought the scientists made too big of an assumption that the rats left some chocolate for the trapped rat. The free rat could’ve been full and decided not to eat the left over chocolate.
Audrey chose a very interesting article to review and caught my eye immediately. She did a very good job in connecting the article to our lives today. In this case that Audrey reviewed, there is a literal link between the rats being tested and us. Also, she clearly and thoroughly explaining the experiment conducted by the University of Chicago team. It really helps the reader to better understand what, exactly, is being tested. Audrey also presented her questions to the lab team’s results well, in proposing the idea that a rat could have been full- that the article did not specify the amount of chocolate left for the rat.
ReplyDeleteTo improve this review, I would recommend further investigating the behavior of rats. I would like to know any theories of why rats have developed to have emotions close to humans; could it be because of their exposure to humans? Also, I would like to know if there was any indication for the future of these tests, as in, will it be conducted on other animals? In addition, I think the lab could’ve improved the validity of their statement by placing a caged rat and uncaged rat within an environment similar to that of their own living one, NOT a laboratory.
I had been aware of the concept of ‘emotional’ rats, but not to the extent that Audrey explained. I was fascinated by the rather humane acts of the Rats, who are typically viewed today as hostile and frightening. Overall, Audrey did a very good job with her review.
Audrey wrote a thoughtful and engaging review of “He's No Rat, He's My Brother”. She summarized the article in a way which flowed well so that the reader could easily follow her thought process. Also, Audrey made a good point when she stated that one of the experiment's results could have been misleading. Lastly she made a good connection between human empathy and the rat empathy scientists believed they were seeing signs of.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this review was very good overall, it had several grammatical errors which severed the nice flow the writing had otherwise. Also Audrey could have provided further insight on what she believed was possibly misleading information.
It was very interesting to read about the similarities between rat and human behavior. If I were to choose emotions that I believed were the most similar in rats and humans, empathy wouldn't one of my top choices, and because of that this review was fascinating.
Audrey’s review of, “He’s No Rat, He’s My Brother” was very interesting and well written. She clearly put effort into creating her piece because the information was accurate and her writing easy to follow. Moreover, Audrey did not exclude any of the experiments conducted, which helped the reader gain a full understanding of the study discussed. Lastly, Audrey did an excellent job explaining why this article is relevant to science today. Many are looking into animal behavior and as Audrey states, “This study is a huge breakthrough in animal behavior.”
ReplyDeleteAs with all pieces of writing, there are a few minor details that could be corrected to improve her review. For example, if some statistical results of the experiment were added Audrey’s review would overall be more thorough. Without numbers Audrey had to use phrases like “a majority of,” which is not very detailed. Also, adding a few quotes from the original article would have greatly enhanced her writing because it makes the reader feel more connected to the article and study. However, as mentioned before these imperfections are only minor, and could easily be modified.
Overall, I learned a lot about animal behavior from the original article and Audrey’s review. Similar to Audrey, I did not know that animals could possibly feel empathy, as humans do. When I read the article I was shocked by the experiment results that the scientists found. In the future, I would like to read more articles on studies involving animal behavior because the topic is fascinating.
I felt that Audrey’s review was both informative and entertaining. Audrey did a good job at summarizing the entire article to ensure that it was both entertaining and easy to understand without even reading the article first. Additionally Audrey did a good job at describing each of the listed experiments to ensure that every possibility was understood. Finally Audrey did a good job at listing exactly how the findings were potentially relevant to our everyday lives.
ReplyDeleteAlthough her review was very well written, I felt there were some parts that could have been improved. I felt that if Audrey had included more of the specific details of the experiments such as the exact findings or statistics then it would have been even easier to follow and understand. Also I felt that if Audrey had included quotes to the review it would have been easier to connect with what the article was trying to convey and we would have gotten both sides.
Overall I found it fascinating that rats could feel empathy because I had always thought that it was a trait that was specific to humans and especially not to creatures that I had always thought of as primitive and simpleminded.
Audrey’s review of her article was very interesting to read about and was an overall well done job. First of all, she explained the experiment very well. She not only told us the reason of the experiment but also went into detail about the specifics of it. She then continued to explain the results of the experiment thoroughly and the what the results mean. In addition, Audrey did an excellent job explaining why this article is relevant to science today. Many are looking into animal behavior and as Audrey states, and she explained that we humans are not the only empathetic species.
ReplyDeleteAlthough she did a very good job with her review, there were a few things she could have improved on. For instance Audrey did not show numerical data, rather she just input observed data. More exact results could have been seen with numerical data which could lead to further inferences. Also she used quotation marks around many words and phrases, which would imply that the statement is vague. Therefore she could have done a more detailed explanation in those sections of the review to reduce obscurity.
Overall, I learned a lot about animal behavior from the original article and Audrey’s review. After reading this review I would like to read more articles on studies involving animal behavior because the topic is fascinating. It was very interesting to read how we are closely related to these creatures, even though our perception of them is substantially lower.