thats really cool

but the article is of poor quality. its bad journalism to use so many words that suggest supernatural WOOO-WOOOO and at the same time to fail at properly explaining it. They even write some stuff that is flat-out wrong. Instead of informing people, the article makes it all sound mysterious.

here is how a better article describes it:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...n-8515259.html

"Pairs of laboratory rats have communicated with each other using microscopic electrodes implanted into their brains. One rat was able to pass on instructions to the other rat in a separate cage using a system of electronic encoding.

....

One rat in each pair, the “encoder”, detected the physical signals of where to find a food reward and pass on these instructions to the second “decoder” rat, which was able to use the encoded signals of the first rat to find a similar reward in its own cage without any further help.
The scientists also showed that the direct brain-to-brain communication, carried by fine wires connecting one rat to the other, can be extended over the internet, with rats in Brazil communicating with rats in North Carolina, some 7,500km away."
so no telepathy here, they use the internet to transmit some digital data. also its just one-way communication, from one rat to the other. only one of the rats has a benefit, and can get some information from the other rat.

but then, im not surprised, ive noticed long ago that the financial times tends to write pure nonsense as soon as they leave their area of expertise and write about something like science.