Yes, I have a comment PALE.

Where on those very emotional and I'm sure, very convincing websites run by PETA et al, do they mention animal ethics committees set up by research institutions?
http://www.animalethics.org.au/reader/arrp-aecs

I didn't see any mentioned, and yet pretty much every research institution in Australia has one (and many overseas as well):

http://www.usyd.edu.au/ro/ethics/animal.shtml
http://www.uq.edu.au/research/orps/animal-welfare
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ethics/animal/
http://www.research.uwa.edu.au/forms_and_guidelines/animal_ethics_forms

They do this because it's the law:
eg. http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ara1985134/

Animal experimentation in Australia is not just for "mere curiosity" as one website put it. It has been through a rigourous ethical consideration process and the benefits have been seriously considered.

However,this thread isn't about animal experimentation, it's about humans affecting their own evolution and how that might affect society or the ethics of even doing so.

I really don't think brain size is the foremost factor in intelligence. I'm sure a cow's brain is much larger than that of a Jack Russell terrier, but which is smarter?

Presumably, much of that is to do with the scale of the animal, but it makes one wonder how much of that is scale, and how much is needed for thought - after all, if progress in computer science has taught us anything, it is that size isn't necessarily a good indicator of power.

TRTL - reread my last post again:http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1391#25526. Further, I don't think you can compare the workings of computer CPUs with human brains at all. Human brains are the result of billions of years of evolution. Computer chips were invented barely 60 ago, and have been deliberately designed to be as small as possible. Once the individual components do reach physical size limits, in order to continue increasing the power, chips will inevitably start to get bigger again.

Simply doubling the mass of brain tissue may not result in a super-spike of mental capacity, but I would be highly surprised if it had no significant effect.

Interestingly, patients who have hemispherectomies still remain highly mentally able, with minimal loss of cognitive function. So at least half of our brain is "back-up tissue".

Bugsy and everyone= Firstly we are nothing to do with peta

Where ever possible we like to draw people attention to behind the scenes of this er,”interesting work”.

This we do all day and everyday and in fact we wouldn’t be doing our job properly if we did not bring it to the public intention.

Speaking of the size of brains bugsy I fail to see how you can possible leave out the major part of this so called research and experiments.

Anytime one or any of you would like to take a look at the real suffering and the truth we are happy to oblige.

RSPCA have long been concerned about the barbaric experimental tests [many quite unnecessary on these poor creatures.]

Now I have no intention of interrupting your thread any further. However we can not agree with the comments below and have just as much right as you to view our opinion.

I do hope you will all think about the other side to these interesting experiments while you are working on the size of your baby’s brain.
To me I should think good breeding and being raised around compassionate parents ought to be the best start for any baby or nation.
We bid you all good day and will leave you to your main line of interest.
We can judge a nation by the way it treats its animals.
Gandhi

There's interesting research coming out of other animal experiments that shows just how powerful biology can be. In one recently reported study, researchers took genetic material from the brains of a group of characteristically hard-working monkeys and introduced it to another species of lazy monkeys, and the lazy monkeys became hard-working.

However, this thread isn't about animal experimentation, it's about humans affecting their own evolution and how that might affect society or the ethics of even doing so.
Posted by Bugsy, Sunday, 6 January 2008 7:02:12 PM

Steven,

I am going to be pedantic and glance at the palaeolithic record... so, please don’t, however nicely, “yell” at me, if I am seemingly going off at a tangent ...

Homo erectus, 1.8 million to 300,000 years ago, had, at the end of this period, an average brain size of 1250 cc.

Homo sapiens (archaic) bridged the period to H. sapiens sapiens, who emerged 120,000 years ago. An omnivore, ate mainly meat (and fish). Leakey ... and the Australian Meat Board ... contribute meat-eating to the development of the modern human brain, the average size of which is 1350cc.

The mysterious and elusive Neanderthal, averaged 5’6” tall, was contemporaneous with H. sapiens sapiens, had an average brain of 1450 cc, about 8% larger than modern man.They were the first to develop funeral practices.

As cranial sutures are delayed in humans, the active period being 25-30 years of age; with circummeatal sutures still closing in the ninth decade, increasing brain mass would not seem a problem.

However, more than overall size, I suspect it is the evidence of greater numbers of convolutions occurring in the cranium of prehistoric man, which indicate brain development, than brain size itself.

Don’t we already have the function of increasing brain mass and IQ in the ability of the brain to further convolute, thereby increasing surface area, and neurons. ... ? Or do
scientists believe we have reached the limit?

Firstly PALE, I know you often say you have nothing to do with PETA, however you are posting links that have a number of references and links to PETA, it often seems that they may in fact be run by PETA affiliated persons. (BTW, "et al" means "and others")

Steven was making a point that the science is already here for manipulation of "intelligence" or behavioural modification through genetic/epigenetic control (in principle anyway). As far as I see it, he was asking for comments about people being able to screen their own offspring for "optimal" genomes and what that may mean for us as humans. I did not see him asking about the ethics of animal experimentation. I also see the thread has gone way off this original question (probably because it was badly phrased, allowing everyone to push their own barrows and talk about what they know, not the original question), but I guess that is what happens around here.

If you are so very concerned about animal experimentation, why don't you express an interest to join an ethics committee at your nearest university? You may actually find out what actually goes on there.