Yesterday evening, Nathan and I were discussing a documentary we watched entitled, "My 40 year old child". The Doctor on the show made this ridiculous claim that humans are the only species that can worry or make memories. I don't quite remember which claim it was. Either way- it was silly. We then remembered that Discovery had a new website which answered the question, Do Animal Worry about Growing Old?
So we went to the website to find out.The conclusion was that they do not. A source cited within the answer was based off a study published in April of 2008 on
episodic like memory in rats and whether it is based on when or how long ago. We read the article that Animal Planet was citing, the conclusion that the Dr. made at the end was that Animals do not form memories. We felt there was something wrong still. So I took my social researching skills to work. Searched for the exact study done in data bases and finally found the actual publication. We printed it and read it together.
Long story short- there was no definitions of how the Roberts, the researcher, was defining the terms "when" and "how long ago" -to us those are essentially the same things. He also was testing for episodic memory and making a wild claim that animals are not capable of forming memories is an entirely different thing as we have no way to test for that. If we could there would be HUGE breakthroughs in the Neuro-Medical Science world. Especially in understanding Alzheimer's. Robert's conclusion was that it was doubtful that mice can form episodic memories. This is a definitive answer and making a definite claim off that is silly.
After we read this article, my husband and I spent 2 hrs talking about it and what was not accounted for and the claims that were made after the fact. Clearly...we are nerds. This was a Bio-Psycho study done and was somewhat confusing statistics wise. But we were able to make enough understanding to really question the conclusion drawn.
After our long nerdy discussion on this research, we then discussed how unfortunate it is that publications tend to draw their information the simplest and quickest way manageable. Discovery sourced the Social Reader from the institution that "recapped" general concepts from the study and gave a different conclusion then what was truly found. The study was not testing for the capability to worry or form memories. This goes to show how easy society is persuaded by fancy words and republications of republications and so on and so forth.
At the end of the day, I love my husband. It's a good thing we can be nerds together! :P