A mere 1 percent difference in DNA separates humans from our closest living relatives -- the chimpanzees. The "Great Ape Project" argues that because the differences between humans and other great apes (chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas and orangutans) are so slight the great apes should share basic human rights. The project aims to have the UN adopt a declaration on the rights of non-human apes that would make research on them impossible.
Supporters of the project point to the psychological similarity between non-human apes and ourselves: non-human apes, they argue, are self-aware. As a consequence of self-awareness great apes must suffer in captivity in ways similar to what we would experience.
This is no abstract debate. There are about 1,600 chimpanzees held for biomedical research in the US alone and are central to the study of several maladies. Perhaps the most important example is liver disease. Research on chimpanzees led to the vaccine against hepatitis B. Nearly half the global population is at high risk of contracting this virus. Chimpanzees have also been crucial in the study of hepatitis C.
But hepatitis only heads the list. AIDS is another example, because chimpanzees are the only non-human species that can be infected with HIV. Chimpanzees are also helping scientists battle other health problems, including spongiform encephalitis (mad cow disease), malaria, cystic fibrosis and emphysema. Because they are close to us, non-human great apes are suitable for research on several diseases that cause human suffering.
Yet, does this similarity make biomedical experimentation difficult to justify ethically?
One reason to think so is the idea that the minds of non-human great apes are similar to ours because some of animals have been taught sign language. But 30 years of research on the abilities of chimpanzees and bonobos to communicate using signs has demonstrated few compelling examples of anything close to human language. In all these studies, the animal's vocabulary developed slowly, and never exceeded a couple of hundred signs, about two weeks' work for a healthy two-year-old child. Chimpanzee utterances rarely extend beyond one or two signs -- making discussion of grammar or syntax forced.
More recent reports suggesting ape grammar are those of a bonobo named Kanzi, whose linguistic abilities are alleged to exceed those seen in earlier sign-language studies with chimpanzees. A critical test for Kanzi's comprehension of sentence structure involved asking him to respond to an instruction such as "would you please carry the straw?" Sure enough, Kanzi picks up the straw. But although grammar may have conveyed the correct meaning of the test sentence, the circumstances could also have made the requested action obvious (given that Kanzi knows what the words carry and straw refer to). After all, a chimp may carry a straw; a straw cannot carry a chimp.
The second tier of evidence for self-awareness in non-human apes comes from so-called mirror tests. While the subject is anesthetized, the experimenter places a mark on the forehead or ear with an odorless, tasteless dye. Upon waking, the animal is shown a mirror. Will the creature recognize that the splash of dye is on his own face? The answer is taken to be yes if the animal touches the marked area of skin more often with a mirror in front of him than without.
It is now accepted that chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans can recognize themselves in mirrors. Most other species examined (including fish, dogs, cats, elephants and parrots) react to themselves in a mirror either not at all or as if the reflection is another animal. The problem with the mirror test of self-recognition lies not in the results -- clearly some non-human apes recognize themselves in mirrors -- but in interpretation.
Why equate self-recognition with self-awareness? Some people cannot recognize themselves in mirrors (blind people, say), but nobody suggests they lack self-awareness. In autistic children self-awareness is impaired. Yet autistics develop ability to recognize themselves in mirrors at the same rate as normal children. So tests of self-recognition in mirrors may say something about how animals view their bodies, but says nothing about their self-awareness.
The final set of evidence for self-awareness in non-human apes comes from something called "cognitive perspective taking." A chimpanzee watches a trainer put food into one of four cups. The chimpanzee knows that the cups are there but cannot see where the food is being put. A second trainer who has watched where the food was put (the knower) then points to the baited cup. A third trainer who has not seen where the food went (the guesser) points to a different cup. A chimp who has an awareness that others have minds, can readily appreciate that one trainer knows where the food is hidden, and the other doesn't. Therefore this individual should select the cup pointed to by the knower in order to receive food.
The chimpanzees ultimately succeeded in picking the cup with food, but required hundreds of training experiences before they could make the right choice consistently. This pattern of slow learning is more like the way any animal might learn and does not suggest that the animal is treating the trainers as people with minds.
In recent experiments, a chimpanzee was offered a choice between begging from a person who could see various pieces of food, and begging from someone blindfolded. To the experimenters' surprise, chimps were initially as likely to approach the trainer who could not possibly see the food. With enough experience, the chimps learned to ask only the person with unrestricted vision. They showed no spontaneous understanding that being unable to see disqualified a person from providing snacks.
Little indicates apes have any awareness of the minds of others, much less that they are aware of their thoughts. Non-human great apes may be only 1 percent of DNA away from us, but their psychology is different. They do not share our self-awareness, nor should they share our human rights.
Clive D. L. Wynne is a lecturer in psychology, University of Western Australia.
copyright: Project Syndicate
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations