Monkey Maven: exposing primate exploitation

Dec 3, 2007

[+/-]

Monkey's eye view of freedom

Aug 26, 2007

[+/-]

Sneak peek: Editorial board on animal experiments and facilities at UW

Jan 26, 2007

[+/-]

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.

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?

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.

Jan 24, 2007

[+/-]

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.)

Nov 20, 2006

[+/-]

Humans and chimpanzees, how similar are we

Nov 14, 2006

[+/-]

Unraveling where chimp and human brains diverge

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.