The New Scientist (3 January 2009) touches on testing cochlear implants on kittens (again) and how the results show early implantation prevents brain scrambling:
Cochlear implants prevent 'scrambling' in deaf brains
Brain activity that is 'scrambled' in deaf cats develops normally if they are fitted with a cochlear implant shortly after birth. The finding may explain how deaf children given implants as babies can learn to speak almost as well as hearing children.
In hearing animals, sound vibrates hair cells in the inner ear, triggering neurons to send impulses to the brain. In deaf animals, these hair cells are often defective; cochlear implants compensate by stimulating neurons directly.
To see how this artificial stimulation affects the brain, Rob Shepherd at the Bionic Ear Institute in Melbourne, Australia, and colleagues recorded electrical activity in the cortex of 17 8 month-old cats that were deaf from birth. As they monitored the cats' brains, they activated each cat's cochlear implant.
Ten of the cats had received the implant relatively recently and their electrical activity was "completely scrambled", indicating that they did not perceive sound coherently: normal cortex activity is key to perceiving sound and, in humans, to developing speech.
In the seven cats that received implants at 8 weeks old, however, activity was similar to that in hearing cats (The Journal of Comparative Neurology, DOI: 10.1002/cne.21186).
Some deaf people say it is unethical to operate on deaf babies, who would otherwise learn sign language. Neurologist Jim Pickles at the University of Queensland, Australia, says the latest work "increases the weight of evidence to implant children early".
Some Points:
1. The need to unscramble, and the whole basis of this research assumes the concept of normality. It assumes that only auditory based means could be 'normal' languages. How about I set up a research project to identify scrambling in hearing brains, just to get why they cannot learn sign language better? That might be absurd to the passing reader, but precisely how some of the logic above reads to me.
I understand the main thrust of the argument above - if you are going to employ auditory intervention you need to do it early. However, the article above appears to move away from this finding and concludes wrongly by adding an additional assumption. i.e. adds to the conclusion that all children should get implanted (as early as possible). Even scientists should recognise choice. The New Scientist would do well to get a deaf person (in a professional capacity) to comment on the above, not make reference to a vague nameless group (which lends to a lack of credibility) against a 'Professor' who really must know best.
2. Cochlear implants are one of Australia's major exports (see this post as an example). Economics matters, and Australia is going to support such initiatives. How about someone having the ethics to pump funding into sign language research, to balance out diversity and promote acceptance?
3. Do deaf people agree with animal testing in their name? Has anyone ever bothered to debate this, or should we employ classic deaf organisation mentality: shut the hell up and tow the line because we mustn't upset the status quo. You are not thinking human beings here.
4. Here we have funding in the region of ASD$20 million, all money controlled by hearing people. See this year's annual report [PDF].
Okay, as a white person: how about I set up a foundation to research blackness and to make black skin white. Surely black people must have such a hard time existing as a black person, all this discrimination in society, racism and whatnot. Lets develop a drug to make their skin white! Those poor black people, they need my help. With it, their problems could be solved, line up right away! Don't complain, because I'm going to fix you. Sure, I could make a lot of money, but lets hide that fact and dress it up as help. I could also get lots of awards for such sweeping innovation, and why should I bother to involve black people? Their opinion is unimportant because I'm helping them! That's enough. Eradicating their woes (which I've subjectively decided, even though I'm not Black) - don't complain!
See how much the damn logic is flawed? Yet because we are 'broken' (says who?), someone along the line just gave permission; thus makes all the above is just perfectly alright.
And a happy new year to you too!
And for the record, if you as a deaf adult want to hear: go right ahead. That is your choice, none of my business etc; just please do yourself a huge favour and explore your identity. However, I do have a massive problem with a (hearing) society statement that make out Deaf people are abnormal and has no tolerance for diversity.
See elsewhere:
Implants when babies could help deaf kids speak
See also:
BUAV guide to charities & animal testing, what about deaf organisations?
Alison Bryan
Jen Dodds
Charlie Swinbourne has penned an 
GOD was quoted in 
It appears that the 
