Drunk Gorillas of Virunga

Less Gorillas in the Mist and more "gorillas getting pissed."

Mountain gorilla after a few too many bamboo shots.Image: Andy Rouse / Daily Mail
This mountain gorilla has been drinking alcoholic sap fermented in bamboo shoots in the highlands of Rwanda. The next day the nature photographer, Andy Rouse, noticed that the gorillas were a bit worse for wear.

When I went back the next day, it was all very quiet, as if they were nursing
gorilla-sized hangovers.

For additional photos see the UK Daily Mail.

[Read more →]

Some Messed Up Monkeys*

"Dance, Monkeys, Dance"
ErnestCline.com
Ernest Cline, director of the recent film Fanboys, has this hilarious spoken word piece that pretty sums up my philosophy perfectly. It's put to music by The Penguin Cafe Orchestra and is accompanied by an 80's style film strip which only adds to the fun.

For more of his great work (including spoken word, info on his films and his blog) click here.

*Obligatory note: Humans are not monkeys. We're apes along with chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons. In general, monkeys have tails whereas apes do not. But I agree that the word monkey is much funnier.

[Read more →]

Cruelty to Chimps in Research Lab

Science questions the morality of invasive experimentation.

Chimpanzees suffering from isolation and disease in the name of science.
Image: Animal Aid
The National Institute of Health scandal involving the abuse of chimpanzees has a full write up in the just released issue of Science. After working undercover and filming cases of abuse at an NIH facility, the Humane Society has published a 100-page report (summary here) calling for an end to invasive experimentation on all great apes. The video footage can be found here.

The video shows a chimpanzee falling from a perch and smacking the floor after being darted by a tranquilizer gun, an anesthetized monkey rolling off a table, a baby monkey writhing while receiving a feeding tube, and other strong images of caged primates. "A major issue for us is the psychological deprivation and torment that these animals are enduring," said HSUS President Wayne Pacelle at a press conference.

A ban on invasive experiments has already been established in Europe, where personhood rights for great apes are much further along than in the U.S. Naturally, in the interest of "balance", Science felt the need to include the opinions of those who are in favor of inflicting needless suffering on our closest relatives.

Several researchers who conduct studies on chimpanzees say the legislation is shortsighted. Geneticist John VandeBerg, the chief scientific officer at the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research in San Antonio, Texas, says researchers there use chimpanzees primarily for testing drugs and vaccines against hepatitis B and C, diseases that he notes affect nearly 500 million humans.

Neuroscientist Todd Preuss of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta complains that the bill defines "invasive" too broadly. It would prohibit his and other groups from sedating chimpanzees to perform brain scans or drawing blood for behavioral experiments and endocrinology studies. He calls these interventions "minimally invasive."

Since Dr. VandeBerg is such a humanitarian I'm sure he wouldn't mind testing the vaccines on himself or his family (or he can give his students extra credit for each injection). Chimpanzees have emotional and sensory lives as rich as our own. The pain and stress of isolation as well as the intentional infection with debilitating diseases is needlessly cruel and should be abolished. This concern about the definition of "invasive" is the same kind of verbal gymnastics that bent the definition of torture into utter meaninglessness. If you wouldn't perform an experiment on a person you shouldn't perform it on a chimpanzee. Period.

Jane Goodall has condemned the practices by the New Iberia Research Center, where the nine month investigation took place, and is a firm supporter of the Humane Society's proposed ban.

In no lab I have visited have I seen so many chimpanzees exhibit such intense fear. The screaming I heard when chimpanzees were being forced to move toward the dreaded needle in their squeeze cages was, for me, absolutely horrifying.

Today we rightly condemn the disgusting experiments conducted as part of the Tuskegee Study in the hope of understanding the course of syphilis. The intention was humanitarian then just as it is now. But to intentionally inflict suffering in order to reduce suffering elsewhere is an empty moral argument. Hopefully in a few decades our children will read about this current squabbling over how immoral we can afford to be in the name of science with the same disgust that we feel about such experimentation in the past.

[Read more →]

Polyamory and the Evolution of a Jealous God

Dawkins critiques the myth of monogamy as morality

God the voyeur wants to know what happens in your bedroom.

Image: Adam & Eve by Enrico Baj
In my earlier post, The Origins of Forbidden Love, I highlighted the absurdity of our culture (and dogmatic religions in general) in regards to sexual infidelity. Today, Richard Dawkins has an article in Newsweek that challenges this nearly ubiquitous social “crime” of infidelity. As the good doctor states:

“I want to raise another question that interests me. Why are we so obsessed with monogamous fidelity in the first place?. . . The underlying presumption -- that a human being has some kind of property rights over another human being's body -- is unspoken because it is assumed to be obvious. But with what justification?”

“Even sticking to the higher plane of love, is it so very obvious that you can't love more than one person? We seem to manage it with parental love (parents are reproached if they don't at least pretend to love all their children equally), love of books, of food, of wine (love of Chateau Margaux does not preclude love of a fine Hock, and we don't feel unfaithful to the red when we dally with the white), love of composers, poets, holiday beaches, friends . . . why is erotic love the one exception that everybody instantly acknowledges without even thinking about it? Why can a woman not love two men at the same time, in their different ways? And why should the two – or their wives -- begrudge her this?”

From the perspective of humans as primates, this view is perfectly obvious. Chimpanzees and bonobos (who share around 99% of our DNA) have what’s referred to as a multimale-multifemale mating system. Females have sex with multiple individuals in their troop and make positive choices about which males they’re most interested in. The evolution of sexual jealousy is seen in nascent form in our evolutionary cousins as a sexual partner that is observed mating with another male frequently results in the former male interrupting their l’amour. Males also compete with each other in what biologists refer to as “sperm competition.” Large amounts of ejaculate will be produced in order to “wash out” a previous males' contribution. Chimpanzee and bonobo males are extraordinarily well endowed in the testicle department as a result. A large testicle-to-body size ratio is therefore a strong predictor of a multimale-multifemale mating system.

In contrast to this, gorillas live in a single male-multifemale mating system and the large bodied males have testicles so small that anatomists have reported difficulty in even finding them. This is because there was no selection pressure from the gorilla mating system to produce a large amount of ejaculate (but this doesn’t mean that gorilla females always mate exclusively with their “harem leader,” with predictably jealous tantrums if the alpha male discovers the tryst). Gibbons are monogamous “lesser” apes and likewise have relatively small testes for their body size. In all of these cases the mating system of the primate species in question can be predicted based on male testicle size.

So this leads to the obvious question: are humans more like chimpanzees and bonobos or more like gibbons and gorillas. Unequivocally, (and as you would expect from the genetic evidence) human testicles are more like chimps and bonobos. In fact, in their analysis of the seminal protein genes SEMG1 and SEMG2 (genes that code for semen coagulation or “mating plugs” found exclusively in multimale-multifemale systems) Sarah Kingan and Steve Dorus found a direct correlation between the average number of sexual partners that females of a species will have and the selection for this gene in males. Humans lie closest to chimpanzees and bonobos at both of these loci and this strongly suggests that humans evolved with a multimale-multifemale mating system.

While sexual jealousy is a natural part of such systems, our human predilection is quite extreme and is largely enforced in a completely one-sided, patriarchal form. As I explored in my earlier post, the likely explanation is that religious dogma sought to control female sexuality as if it was the “property” of the male.

“With the power of the state to punish any violation of the law, women were relegated to the status of chattel and their sexual choices were constrained by the threat of capital punishment. It has only been with the rise of secular democracies, and the reduction of religious authority, that women have begun to reclaim their sexual freedom. The last thirty years has seen the largest rise in women’s economic and social power in human history (mostly confined to the West). It’s not coincidental that women have also seen the greatest freedom from sexual coercion and control during this same period.”

While sexual jealousy is unlikely to ever go away, we can take some comfort in the fact that our large brains allow us to recognize the absurdity of our natural reactions and to behave differently if we choose. Far from this being a call to engage in random and frivolous sex, what I (and Dawkins) are suggesting is that monogamy is not the unparalleled moral good that certain well-funded institutions have made it out to be. A committed relationship to a devoted partner is a wonderful experience and, I for one, much prefer it to a life of wanton bachelorhood. By all means be honest and true to your partner (male or female). But also be honest and true to yourself. As a society and as individuals we should understand the diversity of people’s sexual interests and talk about it openly, without clothing our language with a veneer of false piety.

References:

Kingan, S.B., Tatar, M., Rand, D.M. (2003). Reduced polymorphism in the
chimpanzee semen coagulating protein Semenogelin I. Journal of Molecular Evolution 57:159-169. doi: 10.1007/s00239-002-2463-0

Dorus, S., Evans, P.E., Wyckoff, G.J., Choi, S.S., and Lahn, B.T. (2004). Rate of molecular evolution of the seminal protein gene SEMG2 correlates with levels of female promiscuity. Nature Genetics 36: 1326-1329. doi:10.1038/ng1471

[Read more →]

Great Ape Rights and Human Rights

Legal standing of great apes and the legacy of child exploitation

Chimpanzees are regularly used for biomedical experiments in the US

Image: Martin OC
Earlier I posted on the court cases that challenged the conventional framework of great apes as property and would offer them some protections as sentient beings (see Trapped Between People and Property, Primate Experimentation Under the Microscope and Courts Dismiss Great Ape Personhood). Since the European Union is moving towards granting more expanded rights to great apes it's high time that the United States got on board, and perhaps even stepped up to take a leadership role on this issue.

Pagan at Beacon Broadside has a terrific post on the issues that these legal cases raise and offers an insightful historical perspective on how animal rights may directly impact human rights.

The whole argument may seem trivial, but consider this: Laws that protect animals often change the nature of human rights. In the early 1870s, no laws existed in the United States to protect children from cruelty. And so, when advocates for an abused child wanted to defend her in court, they had to go to Henry Burgh, the founder of the American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals; having managed to outlaw the torture of horses and dogs, it was Burgh who helped to extend similar rights to children.

The issue boils down to a very simple question: since great apes are known to have the emotionally rich lives and intellectual depth of four-year old human children, is it appropriate to categorize these beings as objects to be bought and sold on the open market. Obviously granting more expanded 'personhood' rights wouldn't mean that apes could vote (human children are full persons and can't vote either, and no one is suggesting apes would even have all the same rights as children).

However, considering that GAP Kids was recently found to be using child slaves in their factories (and considering that international law is becoming more and more important in our globalized economy and that countries can sue companies for such international crimes) these are not tenuous concerns. Personhood rights for apes would be a powerful precedent to aid international authorities in combating such child abuse in the future. What court wouldn't recognize the hypocrisy of having laws in place to protect chimpanzees that are more expansive than for poor children?

[Read more →]

Gorillas Use Tools to Fight Human Invaders

Suggests earlier use of tools in human evolution.

Don't mess with other primates, human.
Wild gorillas have been seen using "weapons" for the first time, giving a new insight into how early man learned to use sticks and stones for fighting and hunting millions of years ago. Researchers observed gorillas in the Cross River area of Cameroon throwing sticks, clumps of earth and stones at human "invaders". It is the first time that the largest of the great apes has been seen to use tools in an aggressive way.

Experts believe that our ancestors may have learned to use sticks and stones in a similar way to frighten away predators. The scientists noticed the unusual behaviour during a three-year study. They believe the animals might have learned to throw objects from humans who were seen throwing stones at the gorillas.

Jacqueline Sunderland Groves, from the University of Sussex in Brighton, a member of the Wildlife Conservation Society team, said:

"The area is largely isolated from other gorilla groups, but there are herdsmen on the mountain. In one encounter a group of gorillas threw clumps of grass and soil at the researchers while acting aggressively. Another gorilla threw a branch. A third encounter saw the gorillas throwing soil at a local man who was throwing stones at the apes."

A gorilla was seen to use tools once before in the Congo, using sticks to test the depth of water and to cross swampy areas. The findings suggest that the use of tools may predate the evolutionary split between apes and humans six million years ago.

Source: UK Telegraph

[Read more →]

You Groom My Back, I’ll Groom Yours

Tit-for-tat a common pattern across primate species

Grooming reciprocity common in our evolutionary cousins.

Image: Unattribated
It is one of the oldest questions of philosophy: why are people good and why should we be kind to each other. Research with nonhuman primates is beginning to bring an answer to this age-old question: return benefits.

Thirty years ago Robert Trivers developed the framework of reciprocal altruism. His hypothesis predicted that social organisms would benefit others if the cost to themselves was less than what the expected returns were likely to be. This hypothesis has been successfully tested for species ranging from ants to lions, and now a new analysis can confidently add primates to this list.

Writing in the journal Biology Letters, Gabriele Schino and Filippo Aureli report that across 22 different species and 12 genera of primates females will preferentially groom others that preferentially groom them. Previous studies have suggested that primates will direct their grooming up the hierarchy, in the nonhuman version of social networking. However these studies suggest that a trusted grooming companion was more important in the decision of whom to groom in return than was rank or relationship.

Imagine that? Fairness and gratitude as a common tactic in nonhuman primates? Meanwhile our country is vetoing health care for poor kids because we’d prefer that every family of four dole out $20,000 per year for our war in Iraq (roughly $800,000,000 total). It appears we’re lacking the basic decency found in our primate relatives. We’d better find a way to get it back and construct a more cooperative society, otherwise you may find yourself one day with no one willing to come to your aid during a time of need.

[Read more →]

Tool-Wielding Chimps Reflect Early Human Behavior

Pan the Tool-Maker creatively adapts to harsh environments

Chimpanzees use tools in many environments (here shown with hammer and anvil).

Image: Clive Bromhall/Oxford Scientific Films

A new report from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveal multiple tool technologies employed by chimpanzees in their harsh savanna environment, findings that may help researchers understand how our hominin ancestors coped with a changing climate.

As Science Daily reports:

A team of researchers including University of Wisconsin-Madison anthropologist Travis R. Pickering reports evidence of tool use among rare savanna chimps to harvest edible tubers, roots and bulbs.

The finding is important because it chips away at behaviors once seen as uniquely human. It supports the notion that chimpanzees, our closest living evolutionary relatives, can serve as models for understanding some aspects of the lifestyles and behaviors of the earliest members of the human family.

The new study demonstrates that "the understanding and capability to exploit these resources were very likely within the grasp of the first chimp-like hominids," argues Pickering. "It was widely believed that it is a uniquely human adaptation to use tools to dig these things up."

[Read more →]

A Primate Meets his Maker

Frans de Waal and a fate worse than death

Eric Michael Johnson with Frans de Waal (the bright glow on my face isn't because of the sun).

I'm presenting on my bonobo research today, so I apologize for the sporadic posting recently. It's been a little crazy. However, a funny thing happened yesterday. I met one of my heroes. This doesn't happen to me very often and the feeling was . . . what's the right word? . . . nice. Perhaps a little more than nice. Somewhere between nice and indescribably vast joyful excitement.

Frans de Waal (recently one of TIME's 100) has been most responsible for inspiring me to pursue the work I am currently doing. For those of you who haven't encountered his work before, dive right in to his latest book Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. For those of you who want a more academic example of his writing you simply must, must, MUST, read Primates and Philosophers: How Morality Evolved.

I will write about his talk a little later, but I just wanted to take a moment before my presentation to bask in this warm feeling (if nothing more than to distract myself from the panic I will soon be experiencing as I engage in an activity many view as being worse than death - if Jerry Seinfeld is to be believed).

“According to most studies, people's number one fear is public speaking. Number two is death. Death is number two. Does that sound right? This means to the average person, if you go to a funeral, you're better off in the casket than doing the eulogy.”

[Read more →]

The Biology of a Mother’s Love

Mother-infant bonds predicted by hormone levels in humans and other mammals

Image: "Mother's Love" by Kolongi Brathwaite
A common tactic by evolution deniers is to claim that if a complex behavior can’t be measured than the scientific method must be a flawed approach towards understanding the world. Nevermind that no one challenges the science of physics just because we can’t predict the complex motions of a leaf in a windstorm. But when it comes to matters of emotion somehow natural explanations are off limits. This is readily apparent in the common argument that, “if you think biology is such a good explanation of behavior, then prove that your mother loves you.” However, as it turns out, we can address this challenge of motherly love and demonstrate a plausible scientific explanation by measuring the levels of the important hormones involved.

Writing in the current issue of Psychological Science (subscription required), Ruth Feldman and colleagues at the Gonda Brain Research Center at Bar-Ilan University in Israel have found evidence that neuroendocrine levels of the hormone oxytocin is a strong predictor of a mother’s bond with her infant. By sampling the blood oxytocin levels of 62 pregnant women (of all educational and employment backgrounds) the researchers found that oxytocin levels remained consistent throughout their pregnancy but differed substantially between the women. By then analyzing video footage of the mothers’ interactions with their infants (which included analysis of how often they gazed at the infant’s face, their amount of affectionate touching, rocking, and how often they spoke in motherese to their child) the researchers found that levels of oxytocin was the major factor in predicting the levels of maternal bonding.

As the authors reported in their study:

The results suggest that the neuroendocrine system associated with bond formation in mammals may play a similar role in humans. OT [oxytocin] was found to be related to a well-defined cluster of maternal behaviors, attachment representations, and a specific maternal behavior that appears across mammalian species . . . These findings lend support to ethological and evolutionary perspectives on human bonding.

Macaque mother with nursing infant.

Image: Paula Bronstein/Getty Images
In other words, for all mammals there’s evidence that high levels of oxytocin translate into a feeling of personal attachment with their infant. Earlier studies on oxytocin have shown that the hormone is also involved in pair-bonding and cooperative behavior. For example in the closely related prairie and meadow voles, the former is a pair-bonded species that shows high levels of both maternal and paternal care while the latter are neither pair-bonded nor attentive to their offspring. Work carried out by Thomas Insel at Emory University has shown that oxytocin receptor density is the primary difference between the two species.

As to why some individual’s have high oxytocin levels and others don’t is still an open question. Research on primates and rats has shown that daughters who grew up feeling safe and secure with high levels of parental investment demonstrated the same parental behavior with their offspring. It’s likely that a safe and nurturing environment (with both economic and social support for the mother) would increase a mother’s oxytocin levels and could thereby increase the amount of maternal bonding.

However, it’s important to point out that there is not one “optimal” maternal behavior for all environments. Human mothers respond to their surroundings in the same way that other species do. Whether you’re a mouse living in desert landscape or a woman in an impoverished city center, if an environment is particularly harsh it may well be more adaptive for mothers to show less maternal bonding and thereby raise an infant who will be hardened for a difficult life. It’s also important to point out that while these results are highly significant, there is more than just chemistry that influences a mother’s love. We shouldn’t underemphasize the personal decisions or the cultural influences that a woman encounters that influence her maternal behavior. To do so would be to miss the larger picture and not show our full appreciation for the sacrifices that mothers make.

While many interactions are likely to be involved in maternal behavior (both hormonal and social), this study shows that a mother’s love can be partly quantified and predicted using the tools of the scientific method. More than a final retort to my hypothetical interrogator, what this study shows is how remarkably conservative and elegant the products of natural selection can be. To think that a single hormone is identical across mammalian species and can influence one of the most profound feelings imaginable is an awe inspiring thought. To cop a quote from Darwin himself, there truly is “grandeur in this view of life.”

Reference:

Ruth Feldman, Aron Weller, Orna Zagoory-Sharon and Ari Levine (2007). Evidence for a neuroendocrinological foundation of human affiliation: plasma oxytocin levels across pregnancy and the postpartum period predict mother-infant bonding. Psychological Science 18(11):965-970. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02010.x

[Read more →]

Adoption in Non-Human Primates

How genes for altruism can benefit strangers as well as kin

The generosity of adoption has long been considered a unique human hallmark.

Image: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors
For decades it was conventional dogma that humans were the only species that used tools. “Man the Toolmaker” was our celebrated designation. The hominin fossil Homo habilis (or "handy" man) was even defined within our genera primarily because the skeleton was associated with stone implements. However, when Jane Goodall discovered chimpanzees using modified sticks at Gombe to “fish” for termites, Louis Leakey famously cabled her that:

“Now we must redefine man, redefine tool – or accept chimpanzees as human.”

By now people should stop insisting on singling out specific human behaviors and declaring them to be unique in the natural world. Invariably, whatever special attributes humans possess, other primates do in some form as well. For many years it’s been argued that humans are the only primates that will adopt unrelated individuals to care for as their own. This has been conventional wisdom because it doesn’t make intuitive sense according to the rigid definition of biological fitness.

Since animals, including humans, are primarily ambulatory vehicles for their selfish genes, it would be to one's benefit to care for a niece or cousin that lost their mother but not for a stranger of which there was no genetic relation. This is because any genes that promoted such altruism towards unrelated individuals would end up losing out by using up resources that didn’t perpetuate themselves. However, these “altruistic genes” would be passed on and thrive if they were helping a kin member with similar genetic makeup. In the currency of reproductive fitness, nepotism pays.

However, in the early edition of the journal Primates (subscription required), Cristiane Cäsar and Robert John Young report on a case of adoption among a wild group of black-fronted titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons) from the rainforests of Brazil.


Titi monkeys found to adopt abandoned orphans.

Image: Luiz Claudio Marigo

Since July of 2005 the team has been studying this largely unknown species, when, much to their surprise, they witnessed a new infant traveling with the group that wasn’t there previously (the authors subsequently determined that a nearby group was missing an infant). Presumably the infant got lost from its former group and ended up being saved by the latter. Even more remarkably, it was the male in the new group that provided much of the adoptive care:

“Observations of the adoptive group confirm that it was being cared for by the adult male, and initially the group’s adult female was nursing the infant alongside her biological infant. . . Thus, in the case of adoption by C. nigrifrons there is an argument to include male primates in the definition of adoption.”

This would appear to undermine the notion that only related individuals would be adopted and cared for by others. However, the authors speculate that the two groups might be distantly related, thus suggesting kin altruism as the explanation for this unique occurrence. While this could be, the coefficient of genetic relatedness would likely be much too low for such a large investment to be in the genetic interests of the adoptive parents. Furthermore, any genetic mechanism involved (let alone an epigenetic one) would be unlikely to be so precise as to differentiate a kin member from a stranger. Since any orphan they come across would have a higher chance of being from their own group (and thus closely related), a genetic “rule of thumb” would be to provide assistance to all abandoned infants so long as resources were available.

Much the same has been argued for the origin of human altruism. Since most modern hunter-gatherer populations (and presumably our hominin ancestors) live in small groups of closely related individuals, the chances of helping a kin member by behaving altruistically are very high. Our genes today are descended from such close knit communities and don’t realize that we now live in enormous populations of strangers where being generous doesn’t directly improve our reproductive fitness.

By this simple act of adopting a strange infant, these titi monkeys are teaching us an important lesson about evolutionary strategies. While the net sum of behaviors in the natural world is for the perpetuation of their genes, such mechanisms can’t always differentiate the forest for the trees. Genes that evolved for one set of environmental constraints (in this case helping the infant of a kin member) could promote behaviors for another (helping the infant of a stranger). This should give us some hope as political commentators suggest that our world is spinning out of control as the result of factionalized groups based around instincts for kin networks. If we can extend our notion of kin from our local population to the global community, then perhaps we’ll find a way to help one another. Our genes are already primed to benefit their close relations, we just need to find a way to put them to use for the benefit of the human family.

Reference:

Cristiane Cäsar and Robert John Young (2007). A case of adoption in a wild group of black-fronted titi monkeys (Callicebus nigrifrons). Primates, published online Oct. 16. doi: 10.1007/s10329-007-0066-x

[Read more →]

Jane Goodall - A Personal Tribute

Primatologist and UN Peace Messenger at Duke University

Jane Goodall bridged the divide between two species.

Image: Hugo van Lawick
The primatologist and neuroscientist Robert Sapolsky once wrote that, when he grew up he wanted to be a mountain gorilla. Me, I wanted to be a chimpanzee. His inspiration was Diane Fossey, but I was always most interested in the work by that other cover girl of National Geographic. As I’m sure was the experience for many of us, Jane Goodall was the only scientist I had ever heard of when I was growing up (I wouldn’t discover Carl Sagan until much later). Her friendly manner and relaxed charm was a stark contrast to the cold and cerebral stereotype of Hollywood films.

So it was a great pleasure to finally hear her speak in person after a lifetime of listening to her voice from the old, tinny speakers of my family’s television. As one of the 300 speaking engagements she’ll make this year alone, Dr. Goodall addressed the Duke University campus with a message that was both a warning and an encouragement.

Covering a wide variety of topics -- from her childhood love of animals, to chimpanzee psychology, to industrial farming to global warming -- her presentation was a mixture of great challenges for this generation along with her own story of how she overcame personal adversity. However, I felt her greatest strength was in relaying the interrelated problems of globalization in such a way as to make it both accessible and revealing. She impressed upon the students and faculty in attendance that we privileged elites of the world were primarily responsible for the harmful effects imposed on the developing nations through our wasteful and insatiable consumer appetites. Since we insist on saving a dime for our coffee, another acre of rainforest is burnt in order to turn a profit. While we’ll offer billions of dollars to our allies for weapons of war, we’ll balk at microcredit programs that offer the greatest potential to raise families out of poverty.

However, she was confident that our generation would rise to the challenge. Through her Roots and Shoots program they’ve initiated a program to import shade grown coffee from the highlands of Tanzania that saves both the rainforest and offers poor farmers a living wage. Likewise, by following in the lead of the Grameen Bank (last year’s Nobel Peace Prize recipient), small loans are offering the villagers around Gombe an incentive to preserve their national heritage in a way that avoids the colonial attitude of earlier aid organizations. By explaining both the large scale problems as well as the small scale solutions, the unorganized mess of our global crisis was synthesized into a digestible whole.

It’s rare to have someone present a host of world problems that feel nearly overwhelming in their magnitude and yet to walk away feeling inspired and, dare I say it, hopeful. But such is the magic of Jane Goodall. I’ll still always remember her as she was in my youth, walking through the underbrush with her binoculars around her neck and blonde hair pulled back in a hurried bunch. The Gombe chimpanzees she introduced to the world (Flo, Fifi, Freud, Goblin, and, of course, David Greybeard) were my first introduction to a line of research that would eventually consume my thoughts. While now I want to grow up to be a bonobo, I’ll never forget the woman who first showed me how wonderful it is to be an ape.

UPDATE: Sheril at The Intersection offers her perspective on Goodall's message of hope in her latest post.

[Read more →]

Monkey See, Monkey Don't Remember

Neurogenesis declines in the aging primate brain

Marmoset trying to remember if this bug was tasty or not.

Image: Gerald Durell
We’ve all heard that you can’t teach an old marmoset new tricks, but researchers now understand why in a study that hopes to narrow in on the cause of neurodegenerative illness. Writing in the early edition of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Benedetta Leuner and colleagues at Princeton determined that neurogenesis, or the growth of new neurons, diminishes once these South American monkeys reach sexual maturity. This decline in neurogenesis is particularly noticeable in the hippocampus, a region of the brain central to learning and memory.

This research has been demonstrated previously in rats (I participated in some of this work as an undergraduate student) but there has always been a question as to whether or not the more complex primate brains undergo the same phenomenon:

As the authors reported:

No previous studies have investigated whether primates exhibit a similar decline in hippocampal neurogenesis with aging. . . These data demonstrate that a substantial decrease in neurogenesis occurs before the onset of old age in the adult marmoset brain, suggesting the possibility that similar alterations occur in the human brain.

This is why languages are so difficult to learn as an adult while children seem to absorb them readily. Without the growth of new neural connections in the hippocampus the accumulation of information slows dramatically.


Imo, the Japanese macaque who invented potato washing,
a trait that was easily picked up by the young but not older individuals.

Image: Franz de Waal
These results have also been shown in the adoption of new cultural traditions in apes and monkeys. In the famous “potato washing” findings in Japanese macaques, it was younger females who were quickest to learn the new technique while the older males sat around on the periphery wondering what was wrong with the kids these days.

However, the authors point out the situation isn't a hopeless descent from vigorous mental youth to gum-smacking confusion in old age (although Noam Chomsky should be evidence enough of that). As author Elizabeth Gould explains to Science Daily:

"This news isn't entirely negative, though it seems to be at first glance," Gould said. "The silver lining here is that neurogenesis continues long past puberty and does not stop entirely, even in older primates. What's more, it can be stimulated with experience."

So keep keep struggling through Dostoevsky and Foucault. The mental effort will pay off in the long run.

Reference:

Benedetta Leuner, Yevgenia Kozorovitskiy, Charles G. Gross and Elizabeth Gould (2007). Diminished adult neurogenesis in the marmoset brain precedes old age. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, early online edition Oct. 15.

[Read more →]

Lord Ram and his Army of Monkeys

Existence of God questioned before India's Supreme Court


Lord Ram with his vaanar sena building a bridge to Sri Lanka

The Indian government withdrew a report submitted before the Supreme Court that challenged the existence of the Hindu God Ram. The report was in connection with a proposed shipping canal between India and Sri Lanka.

According to the story linked at RichardDawkins.net:

Hindu hardliners say the project will destroy what they say is a bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys.

Scientists and archaeologists say the Ram Setu (Lord Ram's bridge) - or Adam's Bridge as it is sometimes called - is a natural formation of sand and stones. . . They said there was no scientific evidence to prove that the events described in Ramayana ever took place or that the characters depicted in the epic were real.

As a result the Bharatiya Janata Party (conservative Hindu nationalists that led the government until 2004 - basically the equivalent of modern Republicans) condemned the report for questioning the “faith of the million.” Large-scale protests by Hindu hard-line organizations (which blocked roads and allegedly set a bus on fire) ultimately caused the government to withdraw the report.

While I may have a personal stake in building a primate army I think I'll have to go with the archaeologists on this one.

[Read more →]

The Genetics of Politics

New study breaks the silence and suggests voter apathy could be explained by the genes.

Front page from the 1914 American textbook Eugenics by Professor T.W. Shannon


Genetics and political science have had an ugly association in the past. Arguments that certain people were biologically “unfit” for the political process led to an official eugenics policy in the United States that continued up until the Second World War. This was based largely in prevailing views about racial inferiority.

For example, writing in 1907 Davis Rich Dewey notes (p. 163):

The white population of the South honestly believed that political activity and privilege was bad for the colored race. . . The inferiority of the negro was still held to be a demonstrated fact.

This “demonstrated fact” motivated the Jim Crow voting exclusion laws and anti-miscegenation legislation such as the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.

Given this history you’d suspect few political scientists would be willing to link the fields of genetics and politics, even if they’re clearly separated from the racist views of the past. However, political scientist James Fowler and colleagues have suggested just such a connection in a study they reported on at the American Political Science Association.

In trying to predict who will vote and who will stay home, researchers have tried in vain to find any patterns in age, gender, race, income, or level of education. This is a question of some urgency since fewer than 50% of US citizens regularly vote in presidential elections. In order to determine if genes played any role the researchers collected voting data on 442 identical and 364 fraternal twins and found that 72 percent of the differences in voting turnout and around 60 percent of the differences in political activity could be explained by genetics alone (though those numbers are disputed).

According to a review in the current issue of Scientific American:

If genes do in part control voting, a single gene is unlikely to be responsible—hundreds of genes are probably involved, suggests behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin of King’s College London. Fowler hypothesizes that because “we obviously did not vote in large-scale elections in the Pleistocene,” the drive to vote or participate in politics may be linked with genes underlying more ancient behaviors, such as innate dispositions toward cooperation. The search for any such genes in our primate relatives could help determine “whether we share the neurobiological underpinnings of cooperation or whether humans are unique in this respect,” Fowler adds.

This study doesn’t suggest that genetics can account for political differences (though another study tries to make that claim), merely a willingness to engage in the political process. As it happens, studies on such neurobiological underpinnings of cooperation in non-human primates have been undertaken, including with our closely related cousins the chimpanzees and bonobos.


Bonobos sharing cantaloupe

Image: David Eppstein
According to research by Brian Hare and colleagues published in the journal Current Biology (subscription required) bonobos were found to be more successful than chimpanzees in cofeeding trials that tested their emotional reactivity. Bonobos were shown to be consistently more tolerant, were able to cooperate more effectively and, as a result, ended up receiving a greater food reward than the more individualistic chimps. While it’s a far cry from representative democracy, what the bonobo study demonstrates is that neurobiological processes (and potentially even genetic differences) can go a long way in promoting cooperative behavior and social engagement.

So perhaps Fowler’s study isn’t as far fetched as it may initially appear. However, there are numerous additional factors that should be considered before throwing up our hands and blaming our faulty genes. For example, the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance has demonstrated that since WWII Western Europe has had the largest voter turnout in the world while North America has had the third lowest. Would anyone seriously suggest that genetic factors account for this difference? Certainly higher education standards, a news media that informs rather than provokes and greater worker participation in collective bargaining play some role. Understanding genetic factors can provide some interesting insights into political motivations but, like those who challenged injustice in our nation’s past, in order to turn our broken election system around we’ll need to follow our bonobo cousins and work together to achieve a larger reward.

[Read more →]

Mountain Gorillas Left Unprotected

Park guards flee Virunga National Park amidst hostility

Congolese government troops captured by rebel soldiers
Image: Riccardo Gangale/AP
Earlier I linked to the news that rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo had taken over the gorilla's protected zone in the east of the country. Today it’s being reported that park guards were forced to leave the area as the result of heavy fighting between the factions.

As National Geographic reported:

Today the fighting between rebels and the Congolese army heated up near Bukima, the park's main gorilla monitoring station.

Rangers could also hear the exchange of heavy gunfire near park headquarters at Rumangabo, according to Norbert Mushenzi, director of Virunga's gorilla sector for the Congolese Institute for the Conservation of Nature (ICCN).

"Rangers and local inhabitants are fleeing from all around the park, and the mountain gorillas are totally unprotected," Mushenzi said.

With less than 700 mountain gorillas alive in the wild (half of which live in the Virunga National Park) the situation is dire. The fighting between the rebel factions is a continuation of the Hutu/Tutsi conflict that resulted in the Rwandan genocide of the mid-90s. The fear is that, in addition to rebel groups killing the gorillas for food, illegal charcoal traders may take advantage of the guards' absence to burn the forest.

[Read more →]

Evolutionary Lap Dance

Study suggests women display sexual cues during estrus

Lap dancers earn larger tips when men sense fertility

In my earlier post, Eye of the Beholder, I pointed to new research showing that women are most attracted to individuals other than their partners while in estrus, the most fertile period of a woman’s menstrual cycle. Their eyes betrayed their attraction to others even under controlled settings. Now it seems that estrus causes men’s eyes to widen as well.

Publishing in the journal Evolution and Human Behavior (pdf), evolutionary psychologists Geoffrey Miller, Joshua Tybur and Brent Jordan collected data on the tips received by lap dancers who were currently taking birth control and those who were naturally cycling. Those dancers who were at their most fertile period received significantly more tips than both dancers on birth control and those at other points in their cycle.

As the authors wrote in their study:

When women and men interact intimately over the course of several minutes through conversation and body contact, women apparently either “signal” or “leak” cues of their fertility status, and these cues influence spending patterns by male consumers. These results argue against the view that human estrus evolved to be lost or hidden from males.

However the study has several limitations, as the authors readily admit. The sample size included only 18 individuals which could result in “false positives,” or finding significant differences where there wouldn’t be in results from a larger population. Secondly, the tip earnings and cycle phase were self-reported by the dancers themselves. Knowing which phase of the cycle you’re in can be difficult to determine (or so I’ve been told) and any mistaken estimates are further compounded when the sample size is so small.

Nonetheless, it would be remarkable if women didn’t show some indications of their reproductive status during their peak of fertility. All female mammals display distinct behavioral and physiological cues during their fertile period that increase their reproductive success as a result. For example many primates, including our closely related chimpanzee and bonobo cousins, will develop large estrus swellings during their fertile period and will be more likely to approach the males they find desirable. Rhesus macaque females will vigorously court males during estrus, even using physical aggression if males reject their advances. Also, lionesses will actively seek out up to 100 matings per day with multiple individuals during their one-week of peak fertility (something that was edited out of The Lion King).

Bonobo sexual swellings coincide with greater sexual interest in males and females

Image: Vanessa Woods
This study doesn’t suggest that the dancers were more attracted to their customers while in estrus (or attracted to them at all), merely that males could detect something irresistibly alluring, more so than during other times, and responded with their wallets.

Our society typically views women’s sexuality as either shameful or reserved for men’s enjoyment (as I’m sure the women in this study know all too well). However, in an ironic twist, this tentative evidence of estrus signaling among lap dancers emphasizes the personal empowerment inherent in the evolution of female sexuality. For thousands of generations those women who displayed a healthy sexual desire during their most fertile period were ultimately more successful in the evolutionary dance. This legacy remains visible today, even in women who want nothing more from the males in their vicinity than a decent tip.

Reference:

Geoffrey Miller, Joshua M. Tybur, Brent D. Jordan (2007). Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus? Evolution and Human Behavior. doi:10.1016/j.evolhumbehav.2007.06.002

[Read more →]

Courts Dismiss Great Ape Personhood

Austrian court case hits a snag, but the campaign is ongoing.


Matthew Hiasl Pan, a 28-year-old chimpanzee orphan is in legal limbo.

In my earlier post Trapped Between People and Property I highlighted the recent court cases raising the issue of primate personhood and legal standing. It seems there has been a temporary setback in the case of Matthew Hiasl Pan, a chimpanzee that has been making headlines in Austria.

The Associated Press is reporting that Pan’s case was dismissed from the provincial court on a technical issue because the judge ruled that his human advocates “had no legal standing to argue on the chimp's behalf.”

According to the AP:

The association, which worries the shelter caring for the chimp might close, has been pressing to get Pan declared a "person" so a guardian can be appointed to look out for his interests and provide him with a home.

…

Their upkeep costs about €4,800 (US$6,800) a month. Donors have offered to help, but there's a catch: Under Austrian law, only a person can receive personal gifts.

Organizers could set up a foundation to collect cash for Pan, whose life expectancy in captivity is about 60 years. But they contend that only personhood will give him the basic rights he needs to ensure he isn't sold to someone outside Austria, where he's now protected by strict animal cruelty laws.

The animal rights group, the Vienna-based Association Against Animal Factories who brought the case, is now appealing to the Austrian Supreme Court. According to group President Martin Balluch:

"The question is: Are chimps things without interests, or persons with interests? A large section of the public does see chimps as beings with interests. . . We are looking forward to hear what the high court has to say on this fundamental question."

As one who strongly agrees with the premise that apes should have legal rights (as have such notable figures as Jane Goodall, Richard Dawkins, Jared Diamond, Douglas Adams and Peter Singer – see The Great Ape Project) I’d say it’s long past the time that we regard other sentient beings as mere things and begin breaking down these barriers between human and non-human. Biologists and anthropologists have been breaking down this barrier for fifty years, when will this be reflected in our jurisprudence?

[Read more →]