
Belyayev's Fox Experiment - deogeo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Belyayev_(zoologist)#Belyayev%27s_fox_experiment
======
zone411
A 2017 study showed that hypersocial dogs have structural changes in genes
responsible for Williams-Beuren syndrome in humans. It speculates that this is
what might have allowed domestication.

[https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/7/e1700398)

[https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/williams-
syndrome](https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/condition/williams-syndrome)

------
fnwk
There has been some doubt about the validity of this experiment [1]:

"A widespread misconception maintains that the Farm-Fox Experiment started
with wild foxes and recapitulated the entire process of domestication. Belyaev
himself accurately described the founders as fur-farm foxes, but by referring
to the unselected population as ‘wild controls’, contributed to this
misconception. In reality, the experiment started with a fox population from
eastern Canada that had been captive and purpose-bred since the late 1800s,
something Belyaev and his colleagues may have been initially unaware of."

[1]
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011)

~~~
dmurray
The purpose of the experiment wasn't to show "wild foxes can be domesticated
in just 30 years of selective breeding", though that is the most famous and
perhaps the most important takeaway from it.

The hypothesis under test was something like "expression of tameness is
genetically linked to expression of physical characteristics, such as spotted
fur and floppy ears". It's quite valid in that context: Belyayev started with
a population with a low (perhaps non-zero) level of domestication, ended with
a moderately domesticated population, and observed the physical differences.

~~~
fnwk
It is doubtful, though, that the spotted fur, floppy ears, and other physical
characteristics (domestication syndrome) are a result of the experiment [1]:

"The history of the Farm-Fox population undermines the commonly repeated
narrative that a suite of domestication syndrome traits emerged solely as a
result of selecting on tameness. There is no temporal link between most of the
syndrome traits, which first appeared in Prince Edward Island (PEI) fur farms,
and the later behavioral selection in Russia."

On the spotted fur [1]:

"The farm-fox breeders of PEI intentionally selected for white spotting and
other unusual coat patterns (Figure 3). They noticed that crossing two white-
marked foxes occasionally resulted in animals that held their heads askew, a
phenomenon Belyaev would later describe in his population, suggesting shared
genetic etiology. White spotting was more common in Belyaev’s selected than
unselected populations, but has not been associated with less fearful behavior
in individuals (Figure 2D)."

On the floppy ears [1]:

"The farm foxes of PEI occasionally had floppy ears, even as adults (Figure
3C). In the Farm-Fox Experiment, ‘delayed ear raising’ was noted (ears floppy
past 3 weeks of age, but not necessarily into adulthood). While slightly more
common in the selected population, the trait is extremely rare, and no
association between delayed ear raising and less fearful behavior in
individuals has been described (Figure 2D)."

[1]
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2019.10.011)

------
rossdavidh
The woman who took over the experiment after Belyayev died wrote a book about
if a few years back:
[https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2116251372](https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2116251372)

------
ronilan
This is a horribly edited Wikipedia article yet it is such a delight to read.

~~~
deogeo
I think [https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-
bes...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/mans-new-best-friend-
a-forgotten-russian-experiment-in-fox-domestication/) has much of the same
content, and might be easier to read.

------
mNovak
A handful of websites claim to offer pups from this specific colony as pets,
which sounds wonderful. Though it's hard to validate they weren't just taken
from a fur farm (thus not actually tame).

------
oriettaxx
I was expecting much more content about the implications of these results on
humans

are we domesticated our-self? how does society (morals, e.g.) acts as Belyayev
selection?

~~~
burfog
Relating it to humans gets far more awkward than you might guess. Ponder any
implications of what Wikipedia dares to say about the matter:

 _The changes manifested by the tame foxes over the generations, moreover,
were not only behavioral but also physiological, just as Belyayev had
expected. The first physiological change detected in the tame foxes was a
lower adrenaline level. Belyayev and his team "theorized that adrenaline might
share a biochemical pathway with melanin, which controls pigment production in
fur", a hypothesis that has since been confirmed by research.[2] As they
became tamer, more and more of the foxes began showing "signs of the
domestication phenotype"; Trut later recalled that in the early 1980s "we
observed a kind of explosion-like change of the external appearance."[5] After
eight to ten generations, the tame foxes began to develop particolored coats,
a trait found more in domesticated animals than in wild ones_

 _Belyayev 's experimental animals and their descendants have been said to
"form an unparalleled resource for studying the process and genetics of
domestication".[1] Brian Hare, a biological anthropologist, wanted to study
"the unusual ability of dogs to understand human gestures". Hare "wanted to
know if dogs' powerful rapport with humans was a quality that the original
domesticators of the dog had selected for, or whether it had just come along
with the tameness, as implied by Belyaev's hypothesis". He discovered "that
the fox kits from Belyaev's domesticated stock did just as well as puppies in
picking up cues from people about hidden food, even though they had almost no
previous experience with humans."[1] In a 2005 paper for Current Biology, Hare
suggested that selection for tameness "may have been sufficient to produce the
unusual ability of dogs to use human communicative gestures" and that the
inability of wild wolves to pick up human cues is caused by their fear of
humans. While Belyayev and his team "didn't select for a smarter fox but for a
nice fox", Hare said, "they ended up getting a smart fox." Belyayev's
research, Hare further argues, has implications for the origins of human
social behavior: "Are we domesticated in the sense of dogs? No. But I am
comfortable saying that the first thing that has to happen to get a human from
an apelike ancestor is a substantial increase in tolerance toward one another.
There had to be a change in our social system."[5]_

------
walrus01
Short documentary from a few years ago:

[https://youtu.be/4dwjS_eI-lQ](https://youtu.be/4dwjS_eI-lQ)

------
superpermutat0r
The experiment is not designed well. I would guess that the tameness comes
from the non stimulating environment more than the process of selection. It is
known that mother imprints a lot of hormonal/stress activities to children
while pregnant. Just like starving pregnant mothers have an effect on
generations that come through hormonal gene activation similar thing happens
to animals in wilderness. Is there a line of foxes bread for generations in
captivity with purely random selection?

~~~
deogeo
I believe Belyayev had a control group, yes.

~~~
superpermutat0r
Still, the nature of the control group might have a smaller taming effect
needing longer time to turn into tame.

------
mkl
We've discussed this a few times on HN, but old discussions are a bit hard to
search for. Here are a couple:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10517631](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10517631)
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12493059](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12493059)

------
sillysaurusx
An interesting aspect of this experiment often overlooked: the same process
influences us.

The way that we behave in a corporate setting seems closely related to
domestication. It would be worth examining the traits associated with animal
domestication and compare them to human behavior in a variety of contexts.

It's not really a _happy_ thought that we're domesticated, but power
structures exist, and it's in most of our genetics to serve. It's often
possible to trace certain types of ambition to a young age, for example. It
would be neat to see a more rigorous exploration of whether it's true that
humans are domesticated, and if so, how much, and what it means in a precise
way.

~~~
leftyted
Human reproduction is based on choices made by individual men and women.
"Corporate setting" or not, no central authority is selecting us for mating
based on some characteristic.

With domesticated animals, often a stud is selected and can have hundreds of
offspring. For example, all border collies are related to a single dog (Old
Hemp). There's no comparison to humans.

~~~
doitLP
Imagine the strong selective pressure as humans moved to larger social groups
and agrarian societies. These were ruled by strongmen interested above all
else in most cases in collecting the highest taxes from a compliant
population. Anyone too fierce, fearful or combative would be ostracized at
best, killed at worst.

Even today, prisons and mental institutions are filled with non-conformist,
anti-social people who in many cases are not allowed to reproduce.

~~~
lonelappde
OTOH, "undomesticated" males tend to be good as generating more offspring with
diverse partners than "domesticated" ones with 2.5 children.

