Author Archives: zhou wang

Earliest image of men and dogs – a brief history of our friendship

“I think my Instagram should be renamed, like the album of my Husky.” Said my friend Katrine last week. “That’s why I never post on Instagram,” I replied. “I don’t have a friend that close to me.” Humans’ fevers for dogs spread everywhere on the internet, and dogs have entitled “humans’ best friends” for a very long time. In fact, human relationship with dogs is a very long story, and we can trace it way back when the world population was only about 5,000,000.

 

A paper published in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology last month revealed that sandstone carved images of humans and dogs were discovered in northwestern Saudi Arabia. Scientists suspected the images to be world’s first images of humans and dogs.

 

earliest image of men and dogs” from paper in Journal of Anthropological Archaeology

 

In this image, the man, with an arrow in his hand, has dogs following him hunting the big mammals together. Scientists noticed that there are very obviously carved lines between the man’s waist and the dogs’ necks. Similar lines appeared in the other images at the site, and researchers stated that the lines were probably leashes, and dogs were already domesticated, trained to assist human hunting activity at the time. From the weathering condition of rocks and the sequence of drawings, scientists concluded the art is at least 8000 years old.

 

“It’s the only real demonstration we have of humans using early dogs to hunt.” Said Melinda Zeder, an archaeozoologist at the Smithsonian Institution National Museum of Natural History, Washington, D.C.

 

Scientists have hypothesized the collaboration between dogs and hunters a long ago. In fact, in an earlier study that provided a hypothesis of dogs’ domestication for hunting, evidence indicated mammoths were massively killed at a time when humans did not have compatible weapons in Europe, and dogs were likely accompanying hunters. Dogs, evolved and inherited from wolves, could identify preys by scents and growl in groups to hold preys in place. In fact, another research team also found in Japan that humans from 2,400-16,000 years ago buried their dogs with shreds of evidence that they were hunting partners.

 

Today is always the consequence of yesterday. We now consider dogs are such good friends of humans because the friendship arose since a very long time ago. In the past, humans fed and sheltered dogs while dogs assisted humans for hunting. It is domestication but also collaboration, with the common goal of survival for both men and dogs. It is the result of natural selection. Today, aside from gaining “likes” on social media, dogs are still helping men on a lot of practical aspects such as guidance for the disable, therapeutics, DEA detection. Like the carved images on the stone, our friendship with dogs never faded as time went by.

A guide dog working” by Yahoo! Accessibility lab from Flikr. CC BY-SA 2.0

YouTube Preview Image

Youtube: How dogs became our best friends

-Zhou Wang

Robots’ moral choices: are we ready for self-driving cars?

In a foreseeable future, Starbucks will hire robots as baristas, airports will adopt robots standing in front of the boarding gates, and of course, humans will no longer drive their own cars. A major trend for advancing science and technology is driven by facilitating daily lives, and humans have been dreaming about self-driving cars since 1920s. Autonomous vehicles (AVs), as knowns as self-driving cars or robotic cars, have developed incredibly fast in the past decade. In fact, California is ready to put AVs in use next year, but are we really ready for robots driving on the road?

 

A Google self-driving car” by Michael Shick. Image from Wikimedia Commons. CC BY-SA 4.0

 

AVs are designed to reduce the traffic accidents, but how will the robots decide when they are forcing to choose between two evils, such as to run over pedestrians protecting the passenger or to sacrifice themselves and the passenger in the car saving pedestrians. This hypothetical situation, also called the Trolley Problem, requires a moral decision. A study showed that such decisions made by humans based on emotional engagements, yet robots can only follow the pre-defined algorithms. It is doubtful that AVs should be introduced to our lives before we trust robots can make moral choices.

 

A study conducted online surveys including their opinion on how to program AVs when facing moral decisions and how likely they are going to buy AVs if AVs are programmed as they wished. The results are summarized and visually presented below:

Figure 1. Survey in the study. Image created by Zhou Wang, the author.

Figure 2. Participants’ wills on AV programming. Image created by Zhou Wang, the author.

Figure 3. Participants’ will on tendency to purchase AVs. Image created by Zhou Wang, the author.

 

From figure 2, it is clear to see that survey participants show a trend of agreeing to sacrifice the passenger in the car and to save the pedestrians as the number of pedestrians increases. On the other hand, figure 3 and 4 concludes even the majority agrees to program AVs to sacrifice the passenger in the car when it is possible to save more pedestrians, the same group of participants also showed that the majority will unlikely to purchase an AV if the passenger’s life is not absolutely prioritized.

 

When the participants assumed themselves as pedestrians, most of them was rational and thought the robots should sacrifice the passenger as long as more pedestrians were saved. Conversely, when they considered themselves as consumers to buy AVs, they wanted AVs to protect themselves at all costs.

 

The contradicted results are not surprising, as the participants were always trying to maximize their own benefits. However, the results do suggest that our society may not be ready to let robots make moral decisions regarding life-prioritizing problems, because it is unsure on how to program the AVs. Before safer and more advanced technology is available, we may not be ready to trust robots to drive next to us.

YouTube Preview Image

Youtube: TEDx talk about driverless cars

-Zhou Wang

Trump and science: How US new travel bans affect scientists and their research

Science is one way for human beings to interpret and develop the world, and politics is another way, yet it is time to notice science and politics are no longer running in parallel. In the US, politics is affecting science and harming science progresses.

Since the beginning of this year, Donald Trump issued and revised policies limiting immigration from Muslim-majority countries. Following Nature’s reports, travel bans have negatively impacted scientists and their researches in and outside of the US. Active and future scientists faced extreme travel difficulties, and a few international science conferences and collaborations were canceled or delayed due to the ban.

No Ban, No Wall Protest at PHL Airport” by Joe Piette. Image from Flickr. CC BY-NC 2.0

In January, Trump imposed the first short-term block on seven Muslim-majority countries, in which perspective science researchers accepted into American institutions before January could not obtain a visa. Some of them lost the science education and research opportunities they had earned and been guaranteed. Samira Samimi, a glaciologist from Iran, had a plan of going to Greenland from New York to study snowmelt. After the ban became effective, she could no longer meet with her US team and fly to Greenland. Samimi faced potential consequences of ceasing her research project and delaying her PhD degree.

“None of this is right. There is no way this helps us or our science.” says Mike MacFerrin, a glaciologist colleague of Samimi’s.

A similar tragedy happened to Hani Goodarzi, a cancer biologist at the University of California, San Francisco. He was forced to cancel a talk at the University of Calgary in Canada, because as an Iranian migrant, he was under the fear of not being able to return to the US after leaving the country.

It is not fair for scientists to take the consequence of politics, and it is worse that life-save science researches also suffer from politics.

International projects on combatting disease were heavily interrupted. Farrokh Modabber, an infectious-disease scientist in Iran, could not attend a conference held at the US due to immigration policies. Without updated knowledge from the frontline scientists in regions emerging diseases, the development of vaccinations in the US can be slowed down significantly. As far as Nature has reported, several researches including one on HIV were all greatly hindered by the ban.

“The only way to prevent emerging diseases from coming to the US is to stop them in their tracks in the countries where they arise.” Says Peter Hotez, a disease expert at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas.

It is time to be alert that science deserves to develop without being disturbed, and politics can heavily impact science. A feasible approach to save science from bans is to exclude restrictions on highly professional individuals from policies. In fact, scientists including Nobel prize winners have already started fighting back since January, yet a lot more attention and voices are still needed for the sake of science.

YouTube Preview Image
Youtube: March for Science

-Zhou Wang