Zebra finches can not only distinguish the full range of their species’ vocalizations but also organize them by meaning, according to a new study. The results suggest a surprising level of semantic understanding in the birds. Many social animals use a rich repertoire of vocalizations to communicate their needs, emotions, and awareness of the environment. Researchers have long tried to decode these sounds – essentially the species’ “language” – by grouping them into call types based on how they sound, the situations in which they are used, and how other animals respond. However, it is unclear whether these categories reflect the animals’ own perception or understanding of meaning. Zebra finches, highly social songbirds that use around 11 distinct call types for diverse social behaviors, offer a useful model to evaluate these questions. To test how adult zebra finches classify their species’ vocalizations, Julie Elie and colleagues performed an experiment involving 12 finches, in which the birds had to distinguish one rewarded call type from the other ten nonrewarded call types, including those from other, unfamiliar species. Elie et al. found that these birds have a remarkable ability to distinguish all call types in their vocal repertoire, demonstrating that they can accurately perceive and categorize their species’ vocal signals. Importantly, the authors found that call “misclassifications” were more common between call-types used in similar behavioral or social contexts, suggesting that zebra finches organize calls semantically and form mental representations of their underlying meanings.

In the United States, Republican control of the House or presidency has often coincided with higher federal science appropriations, say Alexandar Furnas and colleagues in a Policy Forum. They base their findings – which challenge the conventional wisdom about partisan support for science – on an analysis of decades of U.S. science- and research-related appropriations data. “Overall, our findings highlight the complexity of the relationship between political control and federal science funding,” write the authors. “[The analysis] underscores the importance of framing science funding as a bipartisan priority that advances shared societal goals, while also calling for vigilance to protect science from political interference.” The United States government – the world’s largest research funder – plays a pivotal role in advancing scientific research and technological innovation worldwide. Even so, the connection between partisan control of the U.S. government and science funding has remained murky. This oversight is made more consequential in today’s polarized climate. To address this, Furnas et al. analyzed a detailed dataset of federal appropriations to science-related accounts from 1980 to 2020. Unlike prior studies that focus primarily on grantmaking, the analysis leverages a hand-collected database of 171 appropriations accounts across 27 federal agencies associated with science or research activity, encompassing the full range of science- and research-related expenditures authorized through the annual appropriations process. These accounts include not only grants to universities and external researchers but also contracts with private firms and in-house research conducted by federal agencies.

 

The findings show that federal science funding is far more complex than often assumed, with grants constituting only a small fraction of total appropriations. According to the authors, much of the money flows instead to private firms through contracts or to in-house agency research, highlighting the need to look beyond grantmaking to understand the full scope of federal investment. Notably, Furnas et al. also found that, contrary to the common perception that Republicans are hostile to science, Republican control of the House or presidency has often coincided with higher levels of science appropriations across multiple agencies, often averaging hundreds of millions more per account compared with Democratic control. Importantly, the authors show that, while the scale of funding fluctuates with partisan power, the distribution of grants across scientific fields remains largely stable. However, according to Furnas et al., given growing polarization and declining trust in science among some Republican policymakers, past patterns of support are no guarantee of what lies ahead.

A new analytical tool that helps identify potential victims of human trafficking and sexual exploitation is helping police forces across the UK work to get justice for victims.

A new study examined how accurate healthcare settings are measuring food insecurity, housing instability, financial strain, transportation barriers and legal issues.