Washoe's legacy and a call to compassion

I was deeply saddened by the recent news of the death of Washoe, a chimpanzee who lived at the Chimpanzee Human Communication Institute in Ellensburg, WA for many years. Her passing is cause to reflect and inspiration for an op-ed (Here with the header "Legacy for Washoe") that I wrote about Washoe last week.

Some people writing about her death have claimed that she changed what it meant to be human – that she changed our society. That, I suppose, is true – but there is more to that lesson. Washoe also helped us see what it means to be chimpanzee. When she spoke her mind, signing about her wants and needs, playing jokes or tricks, showing empathy, she embodied a message of compassion – one that we have not fully heard.

Her life "spoke" of chimpanzee-hood, humanity and compassion. Not in the figurative way that Kafka envisioned when he wrote of Red Peter. But literally - when she joked, fibbed, comiserated, threw tantrums - she challenged us all to think differently (bigger?) about the minds of nonhuman animals. She will be missed.

In light of the lessons taught by Washoe, her fellow signing apes, and all that we know about chimpanzees, we must now realize that how we currently keep and treat chimpanzees in U.S. laboratories is replete with ethical problems. It's time for the United States to join nations all over the world, from Austria to Liberia and New Zealand, that have banned experiments on chimpanzees. It is the right and compassionate thing to do. I'm sure that Washoe would have signed that she agreed.

For more information, see the tribute site, CHCI, Friends of Washoe.

Chicago Tribune: We must think of the primates

In conjunction with the recent "Mind of the Chimpanzee" conference held in Chicago, the Tribune ran a nice article about the mental and emotional lives of our closest great ape cousins. I wrote this Letter to the Editor (scroll down the page view) in response, noting:

Given everything we know about chimpanzees, 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."

One of the heart-warming stories in the original Tribune article ("Empathy for one's fellow chimp" 3/23/2007) was about Knuckles, a chimpanzee who has cerebral palsy. Despite the fact that he does not follow chimpanzee norms, Knuckles is accepted and shown an unusual kindness by others. Such behavior suggests empathy and a sophisticated understanding of the mind of "the other" on the part of fellow group members. To my way of thinking, their behavior indicates they understand clearly that Kunckles' needs and abilities differ from others.

Putting a face on animal suffering: Part II

Last time I wrote about Paul Slovic's work on human empathy in the face of mass suffering, I tried to generalize his findings about human suffering to that of other animals. What does a human bias to respond to the plight of one or two mean for activism? Do the reasons for the bias matter?

Even if we don't have a full understanding of the reasons for this human bias to respond to the plight of a few but not the plight of many, there is plenty of evidence for the existence of the bias and an implicit awareness of it. I think the advent of the "poster child" by certain charities may be a response to the bias - which I'm going to call the JustOne bias.

Is it that the suffering of one inspires action, or that the suffering of many discourages it? If people fail to respond to mass crises, like Darfur or the plight of so many hens in battery cages, could it be because they don't think they can make an impact? On the other hand, do we naturally have an easier time putting ourselves in the shoes or paws of just one being? Or do the numbers put us off? Do the same constraints on our cognition that make the size of the Earth or its population difficult to comprehend make the millions upon millions of animals imprisoned in laboratories hard to comprehend?

Each of these limits suggests a strategy for coping.

1. Help people appreciate that even small actions can help. I think the 34 million friends campaign is a good example of this. This grassroots campaign tells supporters explicitly that they are seeking a specific, small contribution. They also use concrete illustrations of the good that the collective donations can do. Other calls to action use similar strategies. "For the price of a cup of coffee you can XYZ..." It seems to me that microfinance operations embody this principle through their very existence.



2. Identify a "poster animal" who represents the issue. I think it's a fine idea to have that one poster animal as a representative for others who share his or her plight. I do this when I talk about the devastating legacy of maternal deprivation by sharing stories about one particular monkey who I knew personally - AB. Who is that individual? Does he or she have a story? The individual might be one who is doing well and the call is to keep it that way. It can also be an animal who is suffering and in need of help. People have visceral and emotional reactions to pictures and videos of a terrified animal or an animal in pain. The goal is to help people empathize, not to overwhelm.



3. Help people visualize and empathize with the experiences of an animal. One of my favorite examples of helping people identify with an animal is a brochure about the suffering of laying hens, which when unfolded displays text that remind readers that hens are kept in cages roughly the size of the paper in their hands. When I talk about the chair restraint commonly used with monkeys in laboratories, I use the analogy of an airplane seat on short flight and then ask others to imagine with me how that would feel if it lasted for days...or if it never ended. Granted, the coach seat is a cake walk by comparison, but since most people have experienced it at one itme or another, it's a place to start.



4. Facilitate the appreciation of scale. The best example of this that I have ever seen is the video version of "If the world were a village" at http://www.miniature-earth.com/. I've watched it many times, asked students to watch it for classes and know exactly why it won so many awards. Watching it once again now, after finding the link for this entry, I can say it still stirs my emotions.

Tom Regan speaks eloquently about how we can be affected by that one animal, and by the the suffering of the masses. It seems an important challenge, then, is finding the balance between the two. Given the JustOne bias, we have to be careful to address scale in ways that don't overwhelm or reverse the effect of the other approaches mentioned above.

For a brief summary of Slovic's recent research findings, see "How do we stop genocide when we begin to lose interest after the first victim?"

Putting a face on animal suffering - and why it's sometimes just one face

I noticed this gem from the AAAS meetings this week, and it made me think about animal suffering, advocacy and the whitewashing that often takes place in the media or public consciousness. I'll explore this topic in a multi-part post. This is part 1: one and only
A professor from the U of Oregon asks "How do we stop genocide when we begin to lose interest after the first victim?" His research suggests that public outcry over genocide and human suffering is partly a numbers game:

Follow your intuition and act? When it comes to genocide, forget it. It doesn't work, says a University of Oregon psychologist. The large numbers of reported deaths represent dry statistics that fail to spark emotion and feeling and thus fail to motivate actions. Even going from one to two victims, feeling and meaning begin to fade, he said.

I think we see similar trends in animal protection. The billions of chickens slaughtered each year are never mentioned in the media. If we bring it up in conversation, people are as likely to roll their eyes as to gasp in dismay.

"We go all out to save a single identified victim, be it a person or an animal, but as the numbers increase, we level off,"

Yet if one puppy is rescued from a burning building hundreds of people will clamor to donate and adopt. I have seen this chalked up to species differences - to traits that humans find more or less attractive. Sometimes I figure it's dissonance. In this example of differences between chickens and the puppy,the pain of the chickens has to be reconciled against the eating of said chickens. By contrast, the average person's feelings about dogs and his or her treatment of them is probably less disparate. I've seen some data on the species traits argument. But it appears that's is only part of it: we may have an inherent bias in favor of the individual over a group.

Slovic points to this bias as a major factor in responses to genocide. Though he uses examples of human genocide, the similarities to the plight of other animals logically fits in this framework as well. The article continues:

However, models based on psychology are unmasking a haze on the issue. One model suggests that people react very strongly around the zero point. "We go all out to save a single identified victim, be it a person or an animal, but as the numbers increase, we level off," he said. "We don't feel any different to say 88 people dying than we do to 87. This is a disturbing model, because it means that lives are not equal, and that as problems become bigger we become insensitive to the prospect of additional deaths."

[emphasis added]

We aren't talking about diminishing returns here, but an extinction or collapse effect.

"The studies just described suggest a disturbing psychological tendency," Slovic said. "Our capacity to feel is limited." Even at two, he added, people start to lose it.

What does this mean for animal protection?

To be continued.

For a brief article about Slovic's research, see "How do we stop genocide when we begin to lose interest after the first victim?"

Get out your spell-checker: altruism, autism and blue devils

Activation of brain region predicts altruism: But what does that brain region have to do with autism? No. That's not a typo. Scientists from Duke have linked the two in their research.

Many biologists have asked how altruism could even evolve given that it requires self interests to be subverted in the interests of others. Kin selection, reciprocal altruism and selfish genes, i.e. green beard effect, were all notions that arose to explain altruism. But Duke researchers looked for insights with a proximate explanation, rather than a functional one. They investigated what happens in the brain during situations where one had to choose between altruistic and non-altruistic responses.

"According to the researchers, the results suggest that altruistic behavior may originate from how people view the world rather than how they act in it."

(Ummmm. Like this trait just suddenly cropped up in Homo sapiens See my prior posts on empathy and primate fairness for more)

" 'We believe that the ability to perceive other people's actions as meaningful is critical for altruism,' Tankersley said.

The scientists suggest that studying the brain systems that allow people to see the world as a series of meaningful interactions may ultimately help further understanding of disorders, such as autism or antisocial behavior, that are characterized by deficits in interpersonal interactions.

The researchers are now exploring ways to study the development of this brain region early in life, Tankersley said, adding that such information may help determine how the tendencies toward altruism are established. "

Compare this most recent study to those of another team at Duke who claims to study altruism autism by experimenting on primates. In short, monkeys in full-body restraint would fore go a sip of flavored juice to look at photos of fertile female monkeys or socially dominant monkeys. (perhaps they are just desperate for companionship?) When the results of this study were first released, the popular media drew some analogies to porn, gossip magazines or interest in celebrities. The investigators, however, claimed it provided important insights into autism.

While I acknowledge that low-ranking individuals are wise to keep an eye on those with higher-rank, and males are wise to keep an eye on fertile females (evolutionarily speaking), I find the whole thing dubious.

1. Field primatologists have known for decades that monkeys prefer high-ranking group members – without ever keeping thirsty monkeys in cages. In fact, the social preference for or avoidance of an individual is part of how scientists assess status in monkey groups to begin with. What was the question again? Are popular monkeys preferred over unpopular ones? Who's on first?


2. Does any evolutionary biologist doubt that males take risks or accept costs for access to fertile females? Sexual selection or intrasexual competition ring a bell with anyone here? Would any person doubt this based on his or her own experience or plain old common sense?

My point here is that while noninvasive studies in human subjects are underway, primates are suffering in the lab - for naught. It's criminal.

The brain, risk and taxpayers' dollars

Researchers using fMRI (functional magnetic resonance imaging) to look at the decision making process in "risky" situations have found that people are generally risk averse, but there are situations that make risk more tolerable.

I'd say these patterns were generally evident from simple observation of human behavior, but the brain activity associated with these behaviors is better understood through the imaging techniques. fMRI studies with human subject make primate experiments that test "economic" or "risk tolerance" behaviors look redundant and wasteful.

Of course, the experiments are also inexorably cruel.

Such experiments, take this one for example, usually entail the exchange of some liquid or food treat for some behavioral task. Sometimes the food or water is reward for doing behavior X. In other cases, food/drink is purportedly a way to measure preference or how an animal values some thing. The primates are food / water deprived to ensure that they "work" during the experiments.

Normally, experimental measurements are taken while primates are in full body restraint (primate chair) with the head bolted into a stationary position so that electrodes can be implanted into the brain. (Hmm - measuring preference in the absence of free will, in the context of a lifelong history of trauma with an n of ??? Who thought of that one?)

Many field primatologists look at preference in wild primates. Some also try to measure costs or benefits of various behaviors, either in terms of resources like food or in the "currency" of evolutionary success. Obviously, such studies don't involve capture or invasive procedures.

fMRI has been used in some captive primate experiments. fMRI replaces some of the most risky and invasive parts of the experiments (surgeries, electrodes, etc). The real point here is that it is possible to do the experiments in human beings.

You can check out the full article on the UCLA study here: UCLA: How does your brain respond when you think about gambling or taking risks?

(PostScript: It's unusual to think of the responses of the brain and not the whole organism. The former could not "respond" without the latter.)

OT: Social relationships affect personality of fish, say experts

Social relationships affect personality of fish, say experts

They think, feel pain.

MiamiHerald.com | 11/10/2006 | They think, feel pain

An excerpt:

Unfortunately, as our knowledge and understanding of animal awareness and sentience advances, our treatment of them lags further behind. We kill tens of billions of animals yearly, and the toll is rising. In just the time it takes you to read this sentence, a thousand factory-farmed chickens will have been slaughtered in the United States. Like most farmed animals today, they are deprived of the freedom to move about, fresh air to breathe and the sun on their backs.

Animal Emotions: Dogs

No one who has ever had a dog in his/her family ever doubted this!

Jilted dogs feel intense jealousy, new study reveals

Help! Our empathy is missing!

After reading the article Cells That Read Minds (New York Times), I was struck by the fact that there wasn't a single mention of the human ability to "feel" for the monkeys in these experiments.

They mentioned the electrodes, but not the restraint chair or the crainotomy needed to bolt a steel chamber to her head to hold those electrodes. They didn't mention that she was alone in a cage, rather than with other monkeys with whom she could use her mirror neurons.

So, I wrote a little letter to the NY Times...since they never seem to publish what I send them, I'm posting it here for good measure.
___

To the Editor,

Your story on mirror neurons and the biology of empathy (Cells that read minds, 1/10) overlooked something conspicuous – our society’s lack of empathy for the monkey strapped into a chair with electrodes stuck in her brain. Despite their bright minds and unique personalities, many primates languish in small laboratory cages where they endure pain, fear, boredom and distress. Mirror neurons also provide vicarious terror when they see other monkeys wrestled from their cages, or injected with drugs, or maybe even killed at the end of an experiment. To see an example of what monkeys in laboratories commonly see, your readers can visit www.covancecruelty.com.

Given all we know about primates, it’s clear that how we keep and use them in labs is replete with ethical problems. If we take a long, hard look at the suffering of laboratory primates, our mirror neurons will tell us it’s time put an end to the cruelty.

Sad Simians (Depressed to Death)

We've all heard the cliche about dying from a broken heart. For some monkeys, it's not a cliche at all. It's the result of a lifetime of suffering in captivity - isolated from friends and family and surrounded by individuals who are enemies who cause fear, pain distress and suffering. Others don't appear to care one way or the other. Some of those individuals are other monkeys - and some of them are the humans involved in the experiments.


Citation:
Shively, C. A., Register, T. C., Friedman, D. P., Morgan,T. M., Thompson,J., and Lanier, T. (2005). Social stress-associated depression in adult female cynomolgus monkeys (Macaca fascicularis). Biol Psychol 69:67-84.

Summary of experiment:
Female monkeys were put into unnatural social groups intended to induce extreme depression in some animals. The social stress was devastating.

"Over the course of the experiment, 56% of the monkeys in the highest quartile of depression died (5/9), whereas there were only one (11%) or two (22%) deaths in each of the other quartiles. Thus, behavioral depression was associated with increased mortality..."

*Only one or two deaths*? In a setting where proper nutrition is supposedly provided, there are no predators or natural disasters, and veterinary care is readily available, what could the mortality rate be? Apparently there are some very serious risks for morbidity and mortality in this lab.


Institutional affiliations:
Wake Forest University School of Medicine

Funded by:
National Institute of Mental Health
National Institute of General Medical Sciences
John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation