5 ms·

Is there practical expirementsl evidence demonstrating birds can sense magnetic fields? That is, can you train a bird to select between two boxes, one of which

Is there practical expirementsl evidence demonstrating birds can sense magnetic fields? That is, can you train a bird to select between two boxes, one of which contains a strong magnet? Just wondering. I'd read about theories regarding iron in the beaks and whatnot. Sounds cruel, but why not (a) train the bird to select the magnet, then (b) remove beak and check if it can still do the trick, or (c) remove eyes and see if it can still do the trick. I'm not entirely sure, though, that (a) has been accomplished. Can't find anything on it.

piptastic 9y ago
maybe just blindfold the bird, instead of removing the eyes
- godelmachine 9y ago
  You are genius, coz I consider myself non violent, and even I couldn't think of the blindfold idea when the above guy spoke of removing their eyes
  - lurquer 9y ago
    I considered blindfolding, but from what I gather the protein would be activated merely with the presence of the field. Looks like the humane way to test, according to the article cited above, is to affix magnets to the eyes/beak to see if it disrupts anything. In any case, in retrospect, I personally feel my suggestion to remove the beak is more cruel than removing the eyes. Both are hideous to contemplate. But, a bird without a beak? That's just a miserable thing to imagine.
    - caf 9y ago
      The original article suggests that the cryptochrome responsible for magnetic sensing must be stimulated by light to work, and in particular light of the right wavelength.
- jrimbault 9y ago
  Don't most bird just go to sleep when blindfolded ? Or is it just an idea that got in my mind ?
  - elchief 9y ago
    Alligators do. Not sure about birds
  - SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
    They don't tend to actually sleep. They do become more docile, because they can't see to fly without risking hitting something.
    - lloeki 9y ago
      > they can't see to fly without risking hitting something. This sentence makes me wonder: are they docile because it genuinely calms them, or are they entering a sort of helpless automatic panic mode, like "OMFG no escape, can't fly, can't move"? The latter sounds like the bird is getting a terrifying experience.
    - jrimbault 9y ago
      Thinking about it, it was pretty dumb on my part. I know about hunting birds, I should have thought about that.
- mandelbulb 9y ago
  Well: https://reddit.com/comments/8bspee//dx9du3q/ https://reddit.com/comments/8bspee//dx9du3q/
Retric 9y ago
Yea, there are some interesting experiments on this stuff. Though they used drugs vs surgery to test it out. Tunnel test The pigeons were trained to go to one end of the tunnel if the coils were switched on, generating a magnetic field, and to the other if they were switched off, leaving Earth's natural field unperturbed. "I was pleasantly surprised. The pigeons were very fast learners," says Mora, now at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Their skills were impaired, however, when the researchers attached magnets to their upper beaks, and also when the upper beak was anaesthetized. This suggests that their ability is down to the presence of magnetically sensitive material in this area, the researchers report in this week's Nature1." https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041122/full/news041122-7.html https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041122/full/news041122-7.ht...
- lurquer 9y ago
  Hey, thanks! That's what I was looking for! Their procedure is far less bloody than my proposal... that's probably why I'm not a biologist. I guess the "Let's just chop it off and see what happens" ploy isn't all that sophisticated.
liveoneggs 9y ago
next remove the guts and feathers; add salt, pepper, flour, egg whites; dip in hot oil; enjoy
miles 9y ago
> "Sounds cruel, but why not (a) train the bird to select the magnet, then (b) remove beak and check if it can still do the trick, or (c) remove eyes and see if it can still do the trick." It sounds cruel because it is cruel. Reminds me of this quote from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov"[0]: Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth. [0] http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/classes/LAS400/handouts/Karamazov/book5chapter04.html http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/classes/L...
- noir-york 9y ago
  Nice bit of literature reference there. The interesting thing about moral frameworks is there are so many to choose from. Throughout history we have been known to send our sons and daughters to die in large numbers to first gain, and then protect, basic freedoms. And for other, less honourable, reasons as well... Returning back to science, a utilitarian could easily make the case that, if it is impossible to avoid, being cruel to bird for the sake of humanity may be a tradeoff worth making.
  - lkrubner 9y ago
    "a utilitarian could easily make the case that" Are you making that argument? Your comment seems an extreme example of writing that uses the passive voice.
    - jstanley 9y ago
      I think it's more interesting to honestly discuss the argument and its merits if one doesn't have to personally vouch for it upfront.
    - noir-york 9y ago
      The moral framework used generally tends to determine where one falls on the major debates in ethics. As I happen to be aware of the different moral frameworks, I do not have the luxury of being beholden to an unexamined, implicitly "chosen" moral framework. Often times my internal debate is which framework is the most appropriate to evaluate the ethical question at hand. I am talking about hard ethical problems here like euthanasia, not the everyday things like lying, theft, etc. To answer your question, while in my personal life I take a more deontological (Kantian) moral approach, if I were in a policy making role I'd take the pragmatic, utilitarian road; that bird would be sacrificed if it really did help advance science. Ecce homo.
wil421 9y ago
“One man's life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire and transmit over the elemental foes of our race.” - Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein I would hope science has evolved were we could devise a test without having to resort to such a method. Maybe I am too far removed from such things, out of sight out of mind.
felipemnoa 9y ago
There are probably ways to accomplish what you are saying without mutilating the bird. i.e. Just cover its eyes instead of removing them. etc. etc.

piptastic 9y ago

maybe just blindfold the bird, instead of removing the eyes

godelmachine 9y ago
You are genius, coz I consider myself non violent, and even I couldn't think of the blindfold idea when the above guy spoke of removing their eyes
- lurquer 9y ago
  I considered blindfolding, but from what I gather the protein would be activated merely with the presence of the field. Looks like the humane way to test, according to the article cited above, is to affix magnets to the eyes/beak to see if it disrupts anything. In any case, in retrospect, I personally feel my suggestion to remove the beak is more cruel than removing the eyes. Both are hideous to contemplate. But, a bird without a beak? That's just a miserable thing to imagine.
  - caf 9y ago
    The original article suggests that the cryptochrome responsible for magnetic sensing must be stimulated by light to work, and in particular light of the right wavelength.
jrimbault 9y ago
Don't most bird just go to sleep when blindfolded ? Or is it just an idea that got in my mind ?
- elchief 9y ago
  Alligators do. Not sure about birds
- SAI_Peregrinus 9y ago
  They don't tend to actually sleep. They do become more docile, because they can't see to fly without risking hitting something.
  - lloeki 9y ago
    > they can't see to fly without risking hitting something. This sentence makes me wonder: are they docile because it genuinely calms them, or are they entering a sort of helpless automatic panic mode, like "OMFG no escape, can't fly, can't move"? The latter sounds like the bird is getting a terrifying experience.
  - jrimbault 9y ago
    Thinking about it, it was pretty dumb on my part. I know about hunting birds, I should have thought about that.
mandelbulb 9y ago
Well: https://reddit.com/comments/8bspee//dx9du3q/ https://reddit.com/comments/8bspee//dx9du3q/

Retric 9y ago

Yea, there are some interesting experiments on this stuff. Though they used drugs vs surgery to test it out. Tunnel test The pigeons were trained to go to one end of the tunnel if the coils were switched on, generating a magnetic field, and to the other if they were switched off, leaving Earth's natural field unperturbed. "I was pleasantly surprised. The pigeons were very fast learners," says Mora, now at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill. Their skills were impaired, however, when the researchers attached magnets to their upper beaks, and also when the upper beak was anaesthetized. This suggests that their ability is down to the presence of magnetically sensitive material in this area, the researchers report in this week's Nature1." https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041122/full/news041122-7.html https://www.nature.com/news/2004/041122/full/news041122-7.ht...

lurquer 9y ago
Hey, thanks! That's what I was looking for! Their procedure is far less bloody than my proposal... that's probably why I'm not a biologist. I guess the "Let's just chop it off and see what happens" ploy isn't all that sophisticated.

liveoneggs 9y ago

next remove the guts and feathers; add salt, pepper, flour, egg whites; dip in hot oil; enjoy

miles 9y ago

> "Sounds cruel, but why not (a) train the bird to select the magnet, then (b) remove beak and check if it can still do the trick, or (c) remove eyes and see if it can still do the trick." It sounds cruel because it is cruel. Reminds me of this quote from Dostoevsky's "The Brothers Karamazov"[0]: Tell me yourself, I challenge your answer. Imagine that you are creating a fabric of human destiny with the object of making men happy in the end, giving them peace and rest at last, but that it was essential and inevitable to torture to death only one tiny creature ... and to found that edifice on its unavenged tears, would you consent to be the architect on those conditions? Tell me, and tell the truth. [0] http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/classes/LAS400/handouts/Karamazov/book5chapter04.html http://www.bluffton.edu/homepages/facstaff/bergerd/classes/L...

noir-york 9y ago
Nice bit of literature reference there. The interesting thing about moral frameworks is there are so many to choose from. Throughout history we have been known to send our sons and daughters to die in large numbers to first gain, and then protect, basic freedoms. And for other, less honourable, reasons as well... Returning back to science, a utilitarian could easily make the case that, if it is impossible to avoid, being cruel to bird for the sake of humanity may be a tradeoff worth making.
- lkrubner 9y ago
  "a utilitarian could easily make the case that" Are you making that argument? Your comment seems an extreme example of writing that uses the passive voice.
  - jstanley 9y ago
    I think it's more interesting to honestly discuss the argument and its merits if one doesn't have to personally vouch for it upfront.
  - noir-york 9y ago
    The moral framework used generally tends to determine where one falls on the major debates in ethics. As I happen to be aware of the different moral frameworks, I do not have the luxury of being beholden to an unexamined, implicitly "chosen" moral framework. Often times my internal debate is which framework is the most appropriate to evaluate the ethical question at hand. I am talking about hard ethical problems here like euthanasia, not the everyday things like lying, theft, etc. To answer your question, while in my personal life I take a more deontological (Kantian) moral approach, if I were in a policy making role I'd take the pragmatic, utilitarian road; that bird would be sacrificed if it really did help advance science. Ecce homo.

wil421 9y ago

“One man's life or death were but a small price to pay for the acquirement of the knowledge which I sought, for the dominion I should acquire and transmit over the elemental foes of our race.” - Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein I would hope science has evolved were we could devise a test without having to resort to such a method. Maybe I am too far removed from such things, out of sight out of mind.

felipemnoa 9y ago

There are probably ways to accomplish what you are saying without mutilating the bird. i.e. Just cover its eyes instead of removing them. etc. etc.