4 ms·

Thanks To Gene Therapy, Monkeys See In Full Color

27 points by iamwil 17y ago

mhb 17y ago
It would be interesting to find a latent visual ability in humans which could be turned on and allow us to see things in new ways. Like infrared or synesthesia, but maybe something for which we don't have a name.
- holygoat 17y ago
  Tetrachromacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm
  - nopassrecover 17y ago
    I saw something on this recently. I have to assume that Y chromosomes have one colour-sensing cone otherwise by this logic all men would be dichromatic? I'm also struggling to understand how if one X chromosome has these two genes, having two X chromosomes (so more of the same 2 genes) would result in different colour-sensing cones. Finally, it's interesting that the identified tetrochomats cannot see things in the ultraviolet (or otherwise infrared) spectrum, only increased colour differentiation. Perhaps, they really are but the brain interprets them as related to our existing colour map, in the same way that regular trichromats identify a connection between red and violet.
skolor 17y ago
We have been discussing this article on our work ListServ since it came out on Wired this afternoon (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/). The conversation turned rather quickly to whether or not those of us who were color blind would take the treatment if it was available. The three of us (out of ~20 people) who were color blind had rather different answers. One guy fell in the middle, he wasn't quite sure one way or the other. The other guy is leaning towards the treatment, primarily because art plays a large roll in his life. I feel that I would not take the treatment. From what I can tell, being color blind seems to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage for me. While color is nice, it doesn't seem particularly useful in my life. On the other hand, the tendency to notice textures and patterns over the color they are in has frequently been useful to me. I notice movement faster (due to the texture changing, but not the colors), and I notice small differences easier. I would really like to see how other people weigh in on the issue.
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  Heh interesting argument for color blindness as an optimisation rather than a disability. Does anyone know if short-sightedness/long-sightedness results in a corresponding benefit to the opposite-sightedness?
  - ghshephard 17y ago
    Yes - I have (correctable) Myopia. Anything more than about 20' out starts to get blurry. But, I run Terminal.App on my 17" MBP (1920x1200) resolution at Courier 10 point with zero eye strain. That lets me stack up Three (3) 80x24 Terminals on the right side of my LCD and use up only about 15-20% of my horizontal width . I don't drive, so the distance vision doesn't make much of a difference, but for someone who works in front of an LCD for 12+ hours a day, being able to fully utilize my LCD is a major bonus - I wouldn't trade that for being able to see stuff 20' out.
  - skolor 17y ago
    You have to figure: Color Blindness is a recessive trait (at least in humans, I don't know about other species). In order for it to survive, and even increase in expression over the course of human evolution, it has to carry with it some benefits (admittedly, it is also carried on the X chromosome, which has found to be highly linked to IQ). You also find color blindness in several species of animals, particularly those that are predators. To be honest, it isn't an optimization. Its a trade off, that has benefits. An example would be being able to see infra-red light. You would be able to see more colors, which comes with all sorts of advantages (distance the color carries, how well it reflects, what it reflects off of, etc), but the trade off would be you would be even worse off when looking at a pattern. For whatever reason, the human brain (at least, this may be true for other species) considers color to encode quite a bit of information, and it is quite high up on the list of things to process.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      It doesn't have to have a benefit to survive. It just has to not be enough of a hindrance to prevent successful procreation before death. Think of things which are obviously genetic and also obviously not beneficial, such as near-sightedness or teeth mis-alignment.
10ren 17y ago
Impossible is an opinion. Empiricism 1, Rationalism 0
- 10ren 17y ago
  > "I went out and asked all my neuroscientist friends, 'If I do this in an adult monkey, will this give them color vision?' " Neitz says. "And everyone said, 'Absolutely not.' " > Neitz and his team tried the experiment anyway. Doing the experiment is empiricism; relying on a conceptual theory is rationalism. Theory is effective for predicting the logical consequences of what is already known; it cannot predict anything else. Whereas empiricism can discover things which are not dreamed of by a particular theory. Even the famous examples of rationalism, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, and Maxwell's equations which predicted radio waves, were based on empirical observations: that the speed of light appears to be constant in all directions (inconsistent with an ether); and Faraday's observation that a magnetic field can affect the polarization of light, respectively. Excessive rationalism is popular in software researchers, but it is not appropriate for any software that interacts with reality - as all useful software does.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    I think you're suggesting a dichotomy where none exists. The scientific method depends on both.
    - 10ren 17y ago
      When people say "absolutely not", as here, theory attempts to exclude experiment. It's quite common. I agree both are necessary for healthy science.
      - scott_s 17y ago
        I don't think people mean "Don't even try" when they say "absolutely not." It's a colloquial expression, not a scientific expression.
Tichy 17y ago
"Neitz says both monkeys have seemed pretty pleased with themselves ever since." So cute!
gjm11 17y ago
I wonder whether they had a control group, to eliminate the possibility that their "red or green target" wasn't absolutely invisible to a colour-blind monkey but was close enough that it took five months of practice for "Dalton" to work out what he was supposed to be looking for. (Doesn't seem likely -- I'd have thought that if he were doing that, he'd have learned much faster.)

27 points by iamwil 17y ago

mhb 17y ago

It would be interesting to find a latent visual ability in humans which could be turned on and allow us to see things in new ways. Like infrared or synesthesia, but maybe something for which we don't have a name.

holygoat 17y ago
Tetrachromacy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrachromacy http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06256/721190-114.stm
- nopassrecover 17y ago
  I saw something on this recently. I have to assume that Y chromosomes have one colour-sensing cone otherwise by this logic all men would be dichromatic? I'm also struggling to understand how if one X chromosome has these two genes, having two X chromosomes (so more of the same 2 genes) would result in different colour-sensing cones. Finally, it's interesting that the identified tetrochomats cannot see things in the ultraviolet (or otherwise infrared) spectrum, only increased colour differentiation. Perhaps, they really are but the brain interprets them as related to our existing colour map, in the same way that regular trichromats identify a connection between red and violet.

skolor 17y ago

We have been discussing this article on our work ListServ since it came out on Wired this afternoon (http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/ http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/09/colortherapy/). The conversation turned rather quickly to whether or not those of us who were color blind would take the treatment if it was available. The three of us (out of ~20 people) who were color blind had rather different answers. One guy fell in the middle, he wasn't quite sure one way or the other. The other guy is leaning towards the treatment, primarily because art plays a large roll in his life. I feel that I would not take the treatment. From what I can tell, being color blind seems to be more of an advantage than a disadvantage for me. While color is nice, it doesn't seem particularly useful in my life. On the other hand, the tendency to notice textures and patterns over the color they are in has frequently been useful to me. I notice movement faster (due to the texture changing, but not the colors), and I notice small differences easier. I would really like to see how other people weigh in on the issue.

nopassrecover 17y ago
Heh interesting argument for color blindness as an optimisation rather than a disability. Does anyone know if short-sightedness/long-sightedness results in a corresponding benefit to the opposite-sightedness?
- ghshephard 17y ago
  Yes - I have (correctable) Myopia. Anything more than about 20' out starts to get blurry. But, I run Terminal.App on my 17" MBP (1920x1200) resolution at Courier 10 point with zero eye strain. That lets me stack up Three (3) 80x24 Terminals on the right side of my LCD and use up only about 15-20% of my horizontal width . I don't drive, so the distance vision doesn't make much of a difference, but for someone who works in front of an LCD for 12+ hours a day, being able to fully utilize my LCD is a major bonus - I wouldn't trade that for being able to see stuff 20' out.
- skolor 17y ago
  You have to figure: Color Blindness is a recessive trait (at least in humans, I don't know about other species). In order for it to survive, and even increase in expression over the course of human evolution, it has to carry with it some benefits (admittedly, it is also carried on the X chromosome, which has found to be highly linked to IQ). You also find color blindness in several species of animals, particularly those that are predators. To be honest, it isn't an optimization. Its a trade off, that has benefits. An example would be being able to see infra-red light. You would be able to see more colors, which comes with all sorts of advantages (distance the color carries, how well it reflects, what it reflects off of, etc), but the trade off would be you would be even worse off when looking at a pattern. For whatever reason, the human brain (at least, this may be true for other species) considers color to encode quite a bit of information, and it is quite high up on the list of things to process.
  - scott_s 17y ago
    It doesn't have to have a benefit to survive. It just has to not be enough of a hindrance to prevent successful procreation before death. Think of things which are obviously genetic and also obviously not beneficial, such as near-sightedness or teeth mis-alignment.

10ren 17y ago

Impossible is an opinion. Empiricism 1, Rationalism 0

10ren 17y ago
> "I went out and asked all my neuroscientist friends, 'If I do this in an adult monkey, will this give them color vision?' " Neitz says. "And everyone said, 'Absolutely not.' " > Neitz and his team tried the experiment anyway. Doing the experiment is empiricism; relying on a conceptual theory is rationalism. Theory is effective for predicting the logical consequences of what is already known; it cannot predict anything else. Whereas empiricism can discover things which are not dreamed of by a particular theory. Even the famous examples of rationalism, such as Einstein's theory of relativity, and Maxwell's equations which predicted radio waves, were based on empirical observations: that the speed of light appears to be constant in all directions (inconsistent with an ether); and Faraday's observation that a magnetic field can affect the polarization of light, respectively. Excessive rationalism is popular in software researchers, but it is not appropriate for any software that interacts with reality - as all useful software does.
- scott_s 17y ago
  I think you're suggesting a dichotomy where none exists. The scientific method depends on both.
  - 10ren 17y ago
    When people say "absolutely not", as here, theory attempts to exclude experiment. It's quite common. I agree both are necessary for healthy science.
    - scott_s 17y ago
      I don't think people mean "Don't even try" when they say "absolutely not." It's a colloquial expression, not a scientific expression.

Tichy 17y ago

"Neitz says both monkeys have seemed pretty pleased with themselves ever since." So cute!

gjm11 17y ago

I wonder whether they had a control group, to eliminate the possibility that their "red or green target" wasn't absolutely invisible to a colour-blind monkey but was close enough that it took five months of practice for "Dalton" to work out what he was supposed to be looking for. (Doesn't seem likely -- I'd have thought that if he were doing that, he'd have learned much faster.)