Suchergebnisse

Research on coordination and decision-making in humans and nonhuman primates has increased considerably throughout the last decade. However, terminology has been used inconsistently, hampering the broader integration of results from different studies. In this short article, we provide a glossary containing the central terms of coordination and decision-making research. The glossary is based on previous definitions that have been critically revised and annotated by the participants of the symposium "Where next? Coordination and decision-making in primate groups" at the XXIIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society (IPS) in Kyoto, Japan. We discuss a number of conceptual and methodological issues and highlight consequences for their implementation. In summary, we recommend that future studies on coordination and decision-making in animal groups do not use the terms "combined decision" and "democratic/despotic decision-making." This will avoid ambiguity as well as anthropocentric connotations. Further, we demonstrate the importance of 1) taxon-specific definitions of coordination parameters (initiation, leadership, followership, termination), 2) differentiation between coordination research on individual-level process and group-level outcome, 3) analyses of collective action processes including initiation and termination, and 4) operationalization of successful group movements in the field to collect meaningful and comparable data across different species. ; peerReviewed

Research on coordination and decision-making in humans and nonhuman primates has increased considerably throughout the last decade. However, terminology has been used inconsistently, hampering the broader integration of results from different studies. In this short article, we provide a glossary containing the central terms of coordination and decision-making research. The glossary is based on previous definitions that have been critically revised and annotated by the participants of the symposium "Where next? Coordination and decision-making in primate groups" at the XXIIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society (IPS) in Kyoto, Japan. We discuss a number of conceptual and methodological issues and highlight consequences for their implementation. In summary, we recommend that future studies on coordination and decision-making in animal groups do not use the terms "combined decision" and "democratic/despotic decision-making." This will avoid ambiguity as well as anthropocentric connotations. Further, we demonstrate the importance of 1) taxon-specific definitions of coordination parameters (initiation, leadership, followership, termination), 2) differentiation between coordination research on individual-level process and group-level outcome, 3) analyses of collective action processes including initiation and termination, and 4) operationalization of successful group movements in the field to collect meaningful and comparable data across different species. © 2011 The Author(s). ; SCOPUS: ar.j ; info:eu-repo/semantics/published

AbstractPicture a simple scenario: a worm, in its modest way, traces a trail of paint as it moves across a sheet of paper. Now shift your imagination to a more complex scene, where a chimpanzee paints on another sheet of paper. A simple question arises: Do you perceive an identical creative process in these two animals? Can both of these animals be designated as authors of their creation? If only one, which one? This paper delves into the complexities of authorship, consciousness, and agency, unpacking the nuanced distinctions between such scenarios and exploring the underlying principles that define creative authorship across different forms of life. It becomes evident that attributing authorship to an animal hinges on its intention to create, an aspect intertwined with its agency and awareness of the creative act. These concepts are far from straightforward, as they traverse the complex landscapes of animal ethics and law. But our exploration does not stop there. Now imagine a robot, endowed with artificial intelligence, producing music. This prompts us to question how we should evaluate and perceive such creations. Is the creative process of a machine fundamentally different from that of an animal or a human? As we venture further into this realm of human-made intelligence, we confront an array of ethical, philosophical, and legal quandaries. This paper provides a platform for a reflective discussion: ethologists, neuroscientists, philosophers, and bioinformaticians converge in a multidisciplinary dialogue. Their insights provide valuable perspectives for establishing a foundation upon which to discuss the intricate concepts of authorship and appropriation concerning artistic works generated by non-human entities.

Research on coordination and decision-making in humans and nonhuman primates has increased considerably throughout the last decade. However, terminology has been used inconsistently, hampering the broader integration of results from different studies. In this short article, we provide a glossary containing the central terms of coordination and decision-making research. The glossary is based on previous definitions that have been critically revised and annotated by the participants of the symposium "Where next? Coordination and decision-making in primate groups" at the XXIIIth Congress of the International Primatological Society (IPS) in Kyoto, Japan. We discuss a number of conceptual and methodological issues and highlight consequences for their implementation. In summary, we recommend that future studies on coordination and decision-making in animal groups do not use the terms "combined decision" and "democratic/despotic decision-making." This will avoid ambiguity as well as anthropocentric connotations. Further, we demonstrate the importance of 1) taxon-specific definitions of coordination parameters (initiation, leadership, followership, termination), 2) differentiation between coordination research on individual-level process and group-level outcome, 3) analyses of collective action processes including initiation and termination, and 4) operationalization of successful group movements in the field to collect meaningful and comparable data across different species.

The influence of oncogenic phenomena on the ecology and evolution of animal species is becoming an important research topic. Similar to host–pathogen interactions, cancer negatively affects host fitness, which should lead to the selection of host control mechanisms, including behavioral traits that best minimize the proliferation of malignant cells. Social behavior is suggested to influence tumor progression. While the ecological benefits of sociality in gregarious species are widely acknowledged, only limited data are available on the role of the social environment on cancer progression. Here, we exposed adult Drosophila, with colorectal-like tumors, to different social environments. We show how subtle variations in social structure have dramatic effects on the progression of tumor growth. Finally, we reveal that flies can discriminate between individuals at different stages of tumor development and selectively choose their social environment accordingly. Our study demonstrates the reciprocal links between cancer and social interactions and how sociality may impact health and fitness in animals and its potential implications for disease ecology. ; This work was supported by the ANR (Blanc project EVOCAN to F.T. and project DROSONET to F.M. and C.S.), the CNRS (INEE and INSB), Fondation ARC (1555286 to J.M. and F.M.), The French league against Cancer (M27218 to J.M.), IDEEV program (to F.M.), by an International Associated Laboratory Project France/Australia, by the French-Australian Science Innovation Collaboration Program Early Career Fellowship (B.U.), by André Hoffmann (Fondation MAVA), Fyssen Foundation (to F.M. and E.H. D.) and the French Government (fellowship 2015–155 to M.D.).