Monkey Maven: exposing primate exploitation

Why does intelligence matter? The objection to using any animal in experimental research is that it experiences pain, both physical and mental. As far as physical pain is concerned, there is really no difference between a rat and a chimp. They both possess a highly sensitive nervous system, capable of sending intense pain signals to the brain when they are being hurt. To prevent physical pain to experimental animals, one would have to stop all animal research tomorrow.

The separation of apes from other animals reflects our concern that they, being so similar to us, must also be able to experience horrific mental pain, and this is what makes us feel the need to exempt them from medical research duties. We envisage that, like a human torture victim, they must be able to sit in their cells awaiting the next test, with all the anticipatory dread that we ourselves would feel.

This brings us to the ultimate dilemma. If a human terrorist knew when and where a bomb would explode, killing a thousand innocent people, would we have the right to inflict pain on him to save them? If a severe experiment on an ape was the only way we could save the lives of a thousand sick children, would we have the right to carry out the procedure to save them? If the terrorist and the ape are both capable of experiencing intense physical and mental pain, what is the difference? Should we not treat them both in the same way? And do we really want to live in a culture that accepts torture, just so long as it is for a good end?

This question is an important one:
And do we really want to live in a culture that accepts torture, just so long as it is for a good end?

The fact is that few animal tests have anything to do with medicines, and of those that do, many fail. Accepting torture because there is the slimmest of chances that it might do some good - <1% href="http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/desmond_morris/2006/12/post_787.html">The Guardian"

Dec 10, 2006

[+/-]

Dec 5, 2006

[+/-]

globeandmail.com: Moment with orangutan inspired ethicist

Nov 20, 2006

[+/-]

Chimps adjusting well, happy at Chimp Haven

[+/-]

Male chimpanzees prefer mating with old females

[+/-]

Humans and chimpanzees, how similar are we

Nov 15, 2006

[+/-]

Chimpanzee and human genes studied

Nov 14, 2006

[+/-]

Unraveling where chimp and human brains diverge

Nov 12, 2006

[+/-]

Ebola heads for last great apes - health - 11 November 2006 - New Scientist

Nov 10, 2006

[+/-]

The primate sense of fairness and justice

Science Journal - WSJ.com: "Animals Seem to Have
An Inherent Sense
Of Fairness and Justice
November 10, 2006; Page B1

As there is no such thing as a free lunch, Sammy and Bias had to work for theirs. The two capuchin monkeys (the species once employed by organ grinders) sat in side-by-side cages separated by a mesh barrier while just beyond the bars was a tray holding two cups of food. It was counterweighted so that both monkeys had to pull a bar to haul in lunch, moving the tray snugly against the cage in such a way that Sammy could reach one cup and Bias the other.

But Sammy was in such a hurry to chow down that after grabbing the apple in her cup, she let go of the tray before Bias could dig into her own. The tray snapped out of reach, causing Bias to scream bloody murder. After half a minute, Sammy understood. She reached out for the tray and helped Bias reel it in. Anyone who has been around toddlers will recognize Bias's reaction as a simian, 'That's not fair!'

The concept of equity -- and fury when it is violated -- lies deep in the human psyche. But scientists have long wondered whether it is a product of learning or something innate, from deep in our evolutionary past. That question has taken on added importance as behavioral economists probe why people sometimes make 'irrational' decisions, such as rejecting a payoff that would leave them quantitatively better off if a rival unfairly benefits.

Sammy's reaction, righting the inequity, hints at something even more intriguing: Animals other than humans are not only sensitive to unfairness, but are driven to rectify it. Philosophers have long argued that this ability underlies much of our human morality.

The search for the roots of our sense of equity began, as science often does, with casual observations. Primatologist Frans de Waal of the Yerkes National Primate Research Center, Atlanta, once saw a female chimp, Puist, help her male friend, Luit, chase off a rival. The rival took it out on Puist. Although Puist reached out her hand to Luit in a plea for backup, Luit "did not lift a finger to protect her," recalls Prof. de Waal in a recent paper. You could imagine the "that's not fair!" module in her mind turning on. Once the rival left, Puist "turned on Luit, barking furiously. She chased him across the enclosure and pummeled him."

Treat me unfairly? Take that!

Capuchins, too, know unfairness when they see it. They prefer grapes to cucumbers, and when a scientist gave a grape to one capuchin and a cucumber to another, the latter threw it onto the ground and stalked away rather than acquiesce to this injustice.

Now, the research is moving from observations to experiments, such as the pull-tray that triggered Bias's tantrum. To test how sensitive capuchins are to inequity, Prof. de Waal and colleagues counterweighted the tray so that it required only one monkey to reel it in. In this case, the monkey almost never shares its apple with the monkey who hasn't helped. No work, no pay is fair.

When pulling the tray requires two monkeys' efforts, but only one cup is filled, the lucky monkey often shares its spoils. "Winners were, in effect, compensating their partners for received assistance," Prof. de Waal writes. It was the fair thing to do.

To be sure, a saintly commitment to fairness isn't the only thing going on here. By being magnanimous, the monkey who shares his reward with a hard-working but unrewarded partner makes it more likely that when the tables are turned, she will be treated with equal generosity.

Paired with a relative, monkeys are even more willing to pull the tray, even if their own cup (which they can see from afar) is empty. "Fair," it seems, covers a family member reaping the rewards of your labors even if you don't.

Even when little or no effort is required, chimps and capuchins balk at unfair situations, says anthropologist Sarah Brosnan of Emory University. In a series of experiments, the animals learned to trade a "token" (a rock or plastic pipe) with a trainer for food. If they saw a cagemate trade for a delectable grape, but were offered a cucumber in exchange for their own token, they were much more likely to refuse to hand it over for the stupid vegetable. Better to go hungry than to give in to this unfairness.

A sense of fairness underlies irrational choices by humans, too. Economists assume that economic decisions are rational, but in many cases people prefer to gain less in order to punish someone who is behaving unfairly. If a partner proposes a $7/$3 split of $10 offered in an experiment, many people reject it outright, gaining nothing rather than accepting the inequity. "People are willing to give up their own potential gain to block someone else from unfairly getting more than themselves," says Ms. Brosnan, who points to resistance to globalization and free trade as current examples.

It isn't hard to see the survival value of being able to detect inequity. Cooperation requires a grasp of fairness. You need to be able to detect (and punish) freeloaders to keep a cooperative society running. "Fairness counts," she says. "Humans and other animals are able to detect unfairness because doing so is beneficial."

And, it seems, it's an ancient attribute of the primate mind."

And an (unpublished) letter to the editor that I wrote in response:
Editor,

Thank you for your insightful piece about the primate mind and fairness (“Animals Seem to Have an Inherent Sense of Fairness and Justice,” 11/10). What are the implications of knowing that chimpanzees come to the aid of a friend or that their “‘that’s not fair’ module” goes on when a favor is not returned? If individual primates “punish” those who don’t play by the rules—and if they can perceive and respond to the seemingly subtle lack of fairness of being rewarded with a cucumber instead of a grape—is there any basis for assuming that involuntary confinement, social isolation, painful procedures, and other violations of their interests imposed by people don’t register? The answer is “No.”

Primate behavior is compelling and, not surprisingly, it inspires our empathy for nonhuman primates. But that empathy can go much farther. Monkeys subjected to painful experiments in laboratories are harder to ignore when we think of the examples in your article. As ethical beings and as people who have a fuller understanding of the minds, emotions, and lives of all primates, we simply cannot sanction their exploitation.