I find that cognitive scientists often neglect these basic permutations, and present more intuitive results which are easier to accept because of any number of human biases, but may ultimately be an incomplete presentation of reality. I suspect that optimism traits and reward wait period are uncorrelated, and optimism in rats at least depends on some neurochemical factor.
Plus, even a single human Froot Loop would be quite large for a rat. Maybe I'm wrong, but that seems like that's a ton of sugar, yet the article makes no mention of the refined sugar content, after even mentioning their having used cocaine before in their studies.
It looks to me like those researchers have zero clue about the effects of refined sugar on human beings, much less lesser mammals such as rats. Perhaps I'm wrong, but this looks like worthless drivel, but with good funding to invest in "cool" toys for disposable animals.
As to happiness, most people confuse pleasure with happiness, but that's a different discussion altogether.
Who permits studies? Why would this study NOT be permitted today?
edit to add NOT.
Because many people today would prefer that animals NOT be tortured and killed. Good people don't torture animals at all in general, and when we do kill them, it's for a definite end like food or to end suffering, and they are killed in such a way that they do not feel pain.
Increasingly, people don't want to see animals tortured and killed for some unknown or arbitrary end, like "let's just see what happens when we drown this rat dude, for science! lol".
But it's an absolutely sadass commentary on the commentariat here that you have been downvoted. I feel for dang and his cohort, but there are a great deal of trollholes on this internet. (Yeah, I just made up that word.)
But would they be jumping up and down when the dude came into the lab if they weren't looking for that next hit?
Or were they starving those poor creatures? I wouldn't doubt it.
I'll hazard a guess that they weren't jumping up and down because they wanted to take another spin in the new moving environmental element.
Or did they remember that when the dude came in, they could take the new thing to get a whole Froot Loop? Perhaps.
The ethical committee of whatever university or research organisation is responsible for the person who wants to conduct this experiment.
Also, many countries have laws on animal wellbeing that may supersede even a green light from the ethical committee.
You can do a scientific study without torturing the animal - if you have snow alternative, please explain clearly why, why you study is important enough, and convince the ethics board.
You can eat all kinds of things without torturing the animals - if you have no alternative please explain clearly why, why eating meat is important enough, and convince - actually absolutely nobody, nobody in power cares about animal suffering in our food system.
And before you ask, no not everyone has to eat meat, but, there is at least the reason that an all plant diet is intractable to some people for the sheer amount of carbohydrates, and for others due to the mental load of making sure they get the nutrients that are hard to get in plants but easy to get in meat.
This isn't true,as proven by the many laws and regulations about it for decades.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_animal_welfare_and...
Just because abhorrent treatment of animals exists in one industry doesn't mean it's OK for it to appear in another, or in this case, in the field of science.
As you can imagine, there isn't a single combined committee for these two...
That is why Tyson et al don't have an IRB.
But it's probably also more convenient to do drowned rat studies to figure out specific things than it is to construct more elaborate ones to ascertain the same kinds of findings. So I don't think my take is that far off the mark, still.