Top Qs
Timeline
Chat
Perspective

Primatology

Scientific study of primates From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primatology
Remove ads
"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.

Thumb
A scientist observes a captive tufted capuchin (monkey), who has turned her face away from the researcher

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]

Remove ads

History

Summarize
Perspective

Early roots in the West

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]

Thumb
A 1910 syndicated news story made R.L. Garner's anthropomorphic interpretations of chimp behavior almost comical.

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.

Yerkes improved his animal care methods after visiting wealthy animal-keeper Rosalía Abreu in Cuba, the first person to successfully breed chimpanzees in captivity. He documented Abreu's practices in Almost Human,[13] in which he identified several factors to improve captive primate care: socially house animals in large, clean spaces with a choice of shade or sunlight; fresh air; sunlight; a varied, appropriate diet and, where possible, space for excercise.[14]

Other early pioneers of primate research include:

  • Clarence Ray Carpenter, one of the first researchers to scientifically record the behavior of primates in their natural environments, establishing rigorous methodologies for field scientists to follow[15]
  • Wolfgang Kohler, a German psychologist who conducted seminal experiments on ape cognition, described in his classic The Mentality of Apes.
  • N.N. Ladygina-Kohts, a Russian comparative psychologist known for her methodical comparisons of human and chimpanzee behavior, emotion, and cognition.


Establishing primatology as a field (Japan)

Primatology did not emerge as its own distinctive field until the 1950s.[16][17]

Notable Western primatologists

Remove ads

Japanese primatology

Summarize
Perspective

Origins

Japanese primatology is mainly credited to Kinji Imanishi[19] 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. Itani 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

The Japanese discipline of primatology tends to be more interested in the social aspects of primates.[20] 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.[21]

Notable Japanese primatologists

Remove ads

Primatology in sociobiology

Summarize
Perspective

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

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

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.[22]

Remove ads

Women in primatology

Summarize
Perspective

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".[23]

The evolution of primatology

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.[23]

Changing stereotypes[clarification needed]

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".[24] 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.[25] 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.[26] 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.[23]

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

  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.[23]

Remove ads

Academic resources

Societies

Journals

See also

References

Key Sources

External links

Loading related searches...

Wikiwand - on

Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.

Remove ads
Remove ads