Wikipedia

Primatology

(Redirected from Primate research)
"Primate research" redirects here. For testing done on primates, see Animal testing on non-human primates.

Primatology is the scientific study of nonhuman primates.[1] It is a broad term that unites scientists from different fields of study, each with different perspectives. For example, behavioral ecologists may focus on different ways primate species act in different environments or circumstances. Sociobiologists are concerned with genetic inheritance and primates’ physical and behavioral traits. Anthropologists tend to focus on humans’ evolutionary history; they look to primates for greater insights into how Homo Sapiens have evolved. Comparative psychologists study differences between human and nonhuman primate minds.

Olive baboon

Some primatologists work in the field to study animals in their natural environments; others work in labs conducting experiments. Others do a mix of both. In the 21st century, primatologists have increasingly blended approaches, incorporating both experimentation and observational data to varying degrees.

Primatologists often work outside of academia. In parts of Asia, Africa, and South America – where primates are indigenous — they work in government to balance human-wildlife coexistence and promote conservation. In Europe and North America, primatologists work in animal sanctuaries, biomedical research facilities, museums and zoos.[2]

History

edit

Early roots in the West

edit

Primate research has its roots back several centuries. The term Primates (“of the highest rank” in Latin) came in 1758 from Linnaeus, who placed Homo (humans) in the same order as monkeys, apes, lemurs, and bats.[3] This was later revised, and the order primates now includes strepsirrhines (lemurs, galagos, pottos, lorises) and haplorhines (monkeys, apes, and humans).

Charles Darwin’s books On the Origins of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871) drew widespread attention to humans’ closest relatives. His theory of evolution ignited public fascination in the relationship between humans and monkeys, even a "gorilla craze."[4] Popular magazines, explorer stories, and travelling shows spread tales about monkeys and apes playing upon the evolutionary theme.

Zoologists Ramona and Desmond Morris later credited Darwin for setting off two major trends. One: By revealing human’s relationships with other animals, Darwin prompted researchers to consider the behaviour of living animals, especially monkeys and apes, as worthy of detailed scientific study. Two: Researchers inspired by Darwin became prone to highly anthropomorphic interpretations of animal behavior. Once they were seen as related to humanity, animals were viewed as potentially highly rational creatures with exalted moral codes.[5]

Richard Garner, arguably among the first dedicated primate field researchers, personified this tendency. Garner was an innovator in some ways: he built a cage in the African forest to study gorillas in their natural habitat. He recorded primate vocalizations and tested the animal’s responses when played back. But his writings were filled with exaggerated claims about monkey and ape “speech,” stories that provided fodder for outlandish newspaper headlines and illustrations.[5][6]

While scientists from the late-19th and early-20th century were deeply interested in researching evolution, they were wary of being seen as peddling Garner-style primate folklore."[7]  In the early 1900s, many Western researchers discounted observational studies as unprofessional and uncontrolled. They viewed lab experiments as the ideal of scientific inquiry but faced serious complications in building out labs suitable for primates. Primates are not indigenous to Europe or North America and importing them was expensive.[8][9]

More significantly, those hoping to study primates struggled to keep animals alive. The experience of American scientist Robert Yerkes is illustrative. Yerkes spent $2,000 in 1923[10] — most of his life savings at that point — to buy his first two ape study subjects, Chim and Panzee. Within 5 months, Panzee was dead, and by 12 months, Chim was too.[11] From 1837 to 1965, the average primate in zoos survived about 18 months[12]. Given that apes take a decade or more to reach adulthood, the poor care practices for captive animals meant that studies were not only bound to be short-term but largely restricted to juveniles.

Methods

edit

Primatology is a science. The general belief is that the scientific observation of nature must be either extremely limited, or completely controlled. Either way, the observers must be neutral to their subjects. This allows for data to be unbiased and for the subjects to be uninfluenced by human interference.

There are three methodological approaches in primatology: field study, the more realistic approach; laboratory study, the more controlled approach; and semi-free ranging, where primate habitat and wild social structure is replicated in a captive setting.

Field study is done in natural environments, in which scientific observers watch primates in their natural habitat.

Laboratory study is done in controlled lab settings. In lab settings, scientists are able to perform controlled experimentation on the learning capabilities and behavioral patterns of the animals.

In semi-free ranging studies, scientists are able to watch how primates might act in the wild but have easier access to them, and the ability to control their environments. Such facilities include the Living Links Center at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Georgia, US and the Elgin Center at Lion Country Safari in Florida, US.

All types of primate study in the Western methodology are meant to be neutral. Although there are certain Western primatologists who do more subjective research, the emphasis in this discipline is on the objective.

Early field primatology tended to focus on individual researchers. Researchers such as Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Galdikas are examples of this. In 1960, Jane Goodall traveled to the forest at Gombe Stream in Tanzania where her determination and skill allowed for her to observe behaviors of the chimpanzees that no researcher had seen prior. Chimpanzees used tools made from twigs to extract termites from their nests. Additionally, Dian Fossey's work conducted at the Karisoke Research station in Rwanda proved the possibility of habituation among the mountain gorillas. Fossey learned that female gorillas are often transferred between groups and gorillas eat their own dung to recycle nutrients. The third "trimate", Birute Galdikas, spent over 12 years becoming habituated to the orangutans in Borneo, Indonesia. Galdikas utilized statistics and modern data collection to conclude her 1978 doctoral thesis regarding orangutan behavior and interactions.

Notable Western primatologists

edit

Japanese primatology

edit

Origins

edit

The discipline of Japanese primatology was developed out of animal ecology. It is mainly credited to Kinji Imanishi[17] and Junichiro Itani. Imanishi was an animal ecologist who began studying wild horses before focusing more on primate ecology. He helped found the Primate Research Group in 1950. Junichiro was a renowned anthropologist and a professor at Kyoto University. He is a co-founder of the Primate Research Institute and the Centre for African Area Studies.

Theory

edit

The Japanese discipline of primatology tends to be more interested in the social aspects of primates.[18] Social evolution and anthropology are of primary interest to them. The Japanese theory believes that studying primates will give us insight into the duality of human nature: individual self vs. social self.

One particular Japanese primatologist, Kawai Masao, introduced the concept of kyokan. This was the theory that the only way to attain reliable scientific knowledge was to attain a mutual relation, personal attachment and shared life with the animal subjects. Though Kawai is the only Japanese primatologist associated with the use of this term, the underlying principle is part of the foundation of Japanese primate research.[19]

Methods

edit

Japanese primatology is a carefully disciplined subjective science. It is believed that the best data comes through identification with your subject. Neutrality is eschewed in favour of a more casual atmosphere, where researcher and subject can mingle more freely. Domestication of nature is not only desirable, but necessary for study.

Japanese primatologists are renowned for their ability to recognise animals by sight, and indeed most primates in a research group are usually named and numbered. Comprehensive data on every single subject in a group is a uniquely Japanese trait of primate research. Each member of the primate community has a part to play, and the Japanese researchers are interested in this complex interaction.

For Japanese researchers in primatology, the findings of the team are emphasised over the individual. The study of primates is a group effort, and the group will get the credit for it. A team of researchers may observe a group of primates for several years in order to gather very detailed demographic and social histories.

Notable Japanese primatologists

edit

Primatology in sociobiology

edit

Where sociobiology attempts to understand the actions of all animal species within the context of advantageous and disadvantageous behaviors, primatology takes an exclusive look at the order Primates, which includes Homo sapiens. The interface between primatology and sociobiology examines in detail the evolution of primate behavioral processes, and what studying our closest living primate relatives can tell about our own minds. As the American anthropologist Earnest Albert Hooton used to say, "Primas sum: primatum nil a me alienum puto." ("I am a primate; nothing about primates is outside of my bailiwick".) The meeting point of these two disciplines has become a nexus of discussion on key issues concerning the evolution of sociality, the development and purpose of language and deceit, and the development and propagation of culture.

Additionally, this interface is of particular interest to the science watchers in science and technology studies, who examine the social conditions which incite, mould, and eventually react to scientific discoveries and knowledge. The STS approach to primatology and sociobiology stretches beyond studying the apes, into the realm of observing the people studying the apes.

Taxonomic basis

edit

Before Darwin and molecular biology, the father of modern taxonomy, Carl Linnaeus, organized natural objects into kinds, that we now know reflect their evolutionary relatedness. He sorted these kinds by morphology, the shape of the object. Animals such as gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans resemble humans closely, so Linnaeus placed Homo sapiens together with other similar-looking organisms into the taxonomic order Primates. Modern molecular biology reinforced humanity's place within the Primate order. Humans and simians share the vast majority of their DNA, with chimpanzees sharing between 97-99% genetic identity with humans.

Criticisms

edit

Scientific studies concerning primate and human behavior have been subject to the same set of political and social complications, or biases, as every other scientific discipline. The borderline and multidisciplinary nature of primatology and sociobiology make them ripe fields of study because they are amalgams of objective and subjective sciences. Current scientific practice, especially in the hard sciences, requires a total dissociation of personal experience from the finished scientific product (Bauchspies 8). This is a strategy that is incompatible with observational field studies, and weakens them in the eyes of hard science. As mentioned above, the Western school of primatology tries to minimize subjectivity, while the Japanese school of primatology tends to embrace the closeness inherent in studying nature.

Social critics of science, some operating from within the field, are critical of primatology and sociobiology. Claims are made that researchers bring pre-existing opinions on issues concerning human sociality to their studies, and then seek evidence that agrees with their worldview or otherwise furthers a sociopolitical agenda. In particular, the use of primatological studies to assert gender roles, and to both promote and subvert feminism has been a point of contention.

Several research papers on primate cognition were retracted in 2010. Their lead author, primatologist Marc Hauser, was dismissed from Harvard University after an internal investigation found evidence of scientific misconduct in his laboratory. Data supporting the authors' conclusion that cottontop tamarin monkeys displayed pattern-learning behavior similar to human infants reportedly could not be located after a three-year investigation.[20]

Women in primatology

edit

Women receive the majority of PhDs in primatology. Londa Schiebinger, writing in 2001, estimated that women made up 80 percent of graduate students pursuing PhDs in primatology, up from 50 percent in the 1970s. Because of the high number of women, Schiebinger has even asserted that "Primatology is widely celebrated as a feminist science".[21]

The evolution of primatology

edit

In 1970 Jeanne Altmann drew attention to representative sampling methods in which all individuals, not just the dominant and the powerful, were observed for equal periods of time. Prior to 1970, primatologists used "opportunistic sampling", which only recorded what caught their attention.

Sarah Hrdy, a self-identified feminist, was among the first to apply what became known as sociobiological theory to primates. In her studies, she focuses on the need for females to win from males parental care for their offspring.

Linda Fedigan views herself as a reporter or translator, working at the intersection between gender studies of science and the mainstream study of primatology.

While some influential women challenged fundamental paradigms, Schiebinger suggests that science is constituted by numerous factors, varying from gender roles and domestic issues that surround race and class to economic relations between researchers from developed world countries and the developing world countries in which most nonhuman primates reside.[21]

Changing stereotypes[clarification needed]

edit

Darwin noted that sexual selection acts differently on females and males. Early research emphasized male-male competition for females. It was widely believed that males tend to woo females, and that females are passive. For years this was the dominant interpretation, emphasizing competition among dominant males who control territorial boundaries and maintain order among lesser males. Females, on the other hand, were described as "dedicated mothers to small infants and sexually available to males in order of the males' dominance rank". Female-female competition was ignored. Schiebinger proposed that the failure to acknowledge female-female competitions could "skew notions of sexual selection" to "ignore interactions between males and females that go beyond the strict interpretation of sex as for reproduction only".[22] In the 1960s primatologists started looking at what females did, slowly changing the stereotype of the passive female. We now know that females are active participants, and even leaders, within their groups. For instance, Rowell found that female baboons determine the route for daily foraging.[23] Similarly, Shirley Strum found that male investment in special relationships with females had greater productive payoff in comparison to a male's rank in a dominance hierarchy.[24] This emerging "female point of view" resulted in a reanalysis of how aggression, reproductive access, and dominance affect primate societies.

Schiebinger has also accused sociobiologists of producing the "corporate primate", described as "female baboons with briefcases, strategically competitive and aggressive". This contrasts with the notion that only men are competitive and aggressive. Observations have repeatedly demonstrated that female apes and monkeys also form stable dominance hierarchies and alliances with their male counterparts. Females display aggression, exercise sexual choice, and compete for resources, mates and territory, like their male counterparts.[21]

Six features of feminist perspective that characterize contemporary primatology (Fedigan)

edit
  1. Reflexivity: sensitivity to context and cultural bias in scientific work.
  2. "The female point of view"
  3. Respect for nature and an ethic of cooperation with nature
  4. Move away from reductionism
  5. Promote humanitarian values rather than national interests
  6. Diverse community, accessible and egalitarian

Schiebinger suggests that only two out of the six features are characteristic of feminism. One of them is the discussion of the politics of participation and the attention placed on females as subjects of research.[21]

Academic resources

edit

Societies

edit

Journals

edit

See also

edit

References

edit
  1. ^ "What is Primatology?". Primate Info Net. Retrieved 9 June 2011.
  2. ^ "What is a Primatologist?". Primate Info Net. Retrieved 9 June 2011.
  3. ^ Herzfeld, p. 20.
  4. ^ Browne, Janet; Messenger, Sharon (December 2003). "Victorian spectacle: Julia Pastrana, the bearded and hairy female". Endeavor. 27 (4): 155–159. doi:10.1016/j.endeavour.2003.10.006 – via Elsevier.
  5. ^ a b Morris, Ramona and Desmond (1966). Men and Apes. New York: McGraw-Hill. p. 155.
  6. ^ Cohen, Jon (2010). Almost Chimpanzee: Searching for What Makes Us Human, in Rainforests, Labs, Sanctuaries, and Zoos. Henry Holt. pp. 101–09.
  7. ^ Montgomery, Georgina M. (2015). Primates in the Real World: Escaping Primate Folklore and Creating Primate Science. Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press.
  8. ^ Turner, Patricia (2023). "The History of Chimpanzees in Biomedical Research". In Robinson, Lauren M. (ed.). Nonhuman Primate Welfare. Switzerland: Springer. p. 32.
  9. ^ de Waal, Frans B. M. (1 September 2005). "A century of getting to know the chimpanzee". Nature.
  10. ^ Donald A., Dewsbury (2006). Monkey Farm: A History of the Yerkes Laboratories of Primate Biology, Orange Park, Florida, 1930-1965. Lewisburg: Bucknell University Press. p. 34.
  11. ^ Yerkes, Robert (1925). Almost Human. New York: The Century Co.
  12. ^ Herzfeld, Chris (2016). Wattana: An Orangutan in Paris. Translated by Martin, Oliver Y. and Robert D. (English translation from original French, 2012 ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 14.
  13. ^ "Altmann Laboratory". www.princeton.edu.
  14. ^ "Colin Chapman". Colin Chapman.
  15. ^ "Home". Archived from the original on 3 March 2016. Retrieved 29 December 2015.
  16. ^ "Carlos Peres". www.uea.ac.uk. Archived from the original on 18 December 2018. Retrieved 17 December 2018.
  17. ^ Matsuzawa, Tetsuro; McGrew, William C. (22 July 2008). "Kinji Imanishi and 60 years of Japanese primatology". Current Biology. 18 (14): R587 – R591. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.05.040. PMID 18644329. S2CID 13572608.
  18. ^ Bezerra de Melo Daly, G. (2015). "Why Japanese primatology? A perspective from sociocultural anthropology". Primate Research Supplement. 31. doi:10.14907/primate.31.0_106_1.
  19. ^ Herzfeld, C. (2017). Great Apes: A Short History. Yale University Press. p. 192.
  20. ^ Johnson, Carolyn. "Author on Leave After Harvard Inquiry", The Boston Globe, 10 August 2010. Retrieved 29 August 2010.
  21. ^ a b c d Schiebinger, Londa (2001). "Has Feminism Changed Science?". Signs. 25 (4). First Harvard University Press: 1171–5. doi:10.1086/495540. PMID 17089478. S2CID 225088475.
  22. ^ Schiebinger, Londa (2001). "Has Feminism Changed Science". Signs. 25 (4). First Harvard University Press: 1171–5. doi:10.1086/495540. PMID 17089478. S2CID 225088475.
  23. ^ Despret, Vinciane (2009). "Culture and gender do not dissolve into how scientists "read" nature: Thelma Rowell's heterodoxy". In Harman, Oren (ed.). Rebels, Mavericks, and Heretics in Biology (PDF). Yale University Press. pp. 338–355. hdl:2268/135556. ISBN 9780300158458.
  24. ^ Strum, Shirley C. (2012). "Darwin's monkey: why baboons can't become human". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. 149: 3–23. doi:10.1002/ajpa.22158. PMID 23077093.
  25. ^ John Wiley & Sons. "American Journal of Primatology". Archived from the original on 5 January 2013. Retrieved 2 February 2009.
  26. ^ Springer. "International Journal of Primatology". Retrieved 2 February 2009.
  27. ^ John Wiley & Sons. "Journal of Medical Primatology". Retrieved 2 February 2009.
  28. ^ Elsevier. "Journal of Human Evolution". Retrieved 2 February 2009.

Key Sources

edit
  • Haraway, Donna J. (1990). Primate Visions. Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-90294-6.
  • Blaffer Hrdy, Sarah (1999). The Woman That Never Evolved. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-95539-4.
  • Bauchspies, Wenda K.; Restivo, Sal Croissant, Jennifer (2005). Science, Technology, and Society: A Sociological Approach. Blackwell Publishing Limited. ISBN 978-0-674-01004-8.
  • Fedigan, Linda Marie; Strum, Shirley L. "A Brief History of Primate Studies: National Traditions, Disciplinary Origins, and Stages in American Field Research." In Phyllis Dolhinow and Augustin Fuentes, The NonHuman Primates, Mountain View, California: Mayfield Publishing (1999).
  • Herzfeld, Chris (2017). The Great Apes: A Short History. New Haven: Yale University Press. English translation by Kevin Frey from the original French (2012).
  • Radhakrishna, Sindhu; Jamieson, Dale (2018). "Liberating Primatology," Journal of Biosciences, March 2018, doi.org/10.1007/s12038-017-9724-3
  • Stone, Linda (2005). Kinship And Gender: An Introduction. Boulder, Colo: Westview Press. ISBN 978-0-8133-4302-0.
  • Fedigan, Linda Marie; Strum, Shirley C. (2000). Primate encounters: models of science, gender, and society. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 978-0-226-77755-9.
edit
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primatology&oldid=1308808795"