I just always wonder what we gain scientifically with these kind of studies. Why do we need to prove this? Aren't there any more important issues these scientists could use their time and money on?

I'm asking in all earnestness. What is the benefit of this knowlege?

[–] loaExMachina@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 months ago

There's been scientific and philosophical debates for a long time about which cognitive traits are specific to humans and which are shared across species, and which trait is specific to each group. This is just another element to add to this debate.

If you're wondering how this can be applied, it's not the researcher's job to know. A lot of the time, a discovery's practical applications are only found decades after the discovery itself. Some are never used, but we can't know in advance which knowledge will be useful.

So ideally, those who work in fundamental research needn't consern themselves with the potential use of their work, they seek knowledge for itself. If there's useful stuff in there, applied scientists and engineers will pick it up later. Ideally, but unfortunately, researchers may need to convince a patron that their research will be useful if they need private fundings, which can be a problem. Sometimes, they'll have to put a little bullshit in their pitch for companies. But since this probably wasn't a very expensive study, maybe public grants were enough. Or maybe they convinced some company that they could use it to promote cat antidepressants.

[–] witx@lemmy.sdf.org 4 points 3 months ago

I don't know as biology(?) is not my area of expertise. The way I see it it can be valuable for us as a society to be more empathetic? I know you shouldn't need science for that but hey ...