Primatology is the scientific study of primates. It is a diverse discipline at the boundary between mammalogy and anthropology, and researchers can be found in academic departments of anatomy, anthropology, biology, medicine, psychology, veterinary sciences and zoology, as well as in animal sanctuaries, biomedical research facilities, museums and zoos.
Primatologists study both living and extinct primates in their natural
habitats and in laboratories by conducting field studies and experiments
in order to understand aspects of their evolution and behaviour.
Sub-disciplines
As
a science, primatology has many different sub-disciplines which vary in
terms of theoretical and methodological approaches to the subject used
in researching extant primates and their extinct ancestors.
There are two main centers of primatology, Western primatology and Japanese primatology.
These two divergent disciplines stem from their unique cultural
backgrounds and philosophies that went into their founding. Although,
fundamentally, both Western and Japanese primatology share many of the
same principles, the areas of their focus in primate research and their
methods of obtaining data differ widely.
Western primatology
Origins
Western
primatology stems primarily from research by North American and
European scientists. Early primate study focused primarily in medical
research, but some scientists also conducted "civilizing" experiments on
chimpanzees in order to gauge both primate intelligence and the limits of their brainpower.
Theory
The study
of primatology looks at the biological and psychological aspects of
non-human primates. The focus is on studying the common links between
humans and primates. It is believed that by understanding our closest
animal relatives, we might better understand the nature shared with our
ancestors.
Methods
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 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 and the Elgin Center at Lion Country Safari in Florida.
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 Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall 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. Long-term
sites of research tend to be best associated with their founders, and
this led to some tension between younger primatologists and the veterans
in the field.
Notable Western primatologists
- Jeanne Altmann
- Sarah Blaffer Hrdy
- Christophe Boesch
- Geoffrey Bourne
- Josep Call
- C. R. Carpenter
- Colin Chapman
- Dorothy_Cheney_(scientist)
- Frans de Waal
- Thomas Defler
- Alejandro Estrada
- Linda Fedigan
- Dian Fossey
- Agustin Fuentes
- Birutė Galdikas
- Paul Garber
- Richard Lynch Garner
- Jane Goodall
- Colin Groves
- Harry Harlow
- Philip Hershkovitz
- Alison Jolly
- Nadezhda Ladygina-Kohts
- Louis Leakey
- Robert D. Martin
- Emil Wolfgang Menzel, Jr.
- Russell Mittermeier
- John R. Napier
- Carlos A. Peres
- Matthew Richardson
- Anne E. Russon
- Jordi Sabater Pi
- Robert Sapolsky
- Carel van Schaik
- Robert_Seyfarth_(scientist)
- Meredith Small
- Barbara Smuts
- Craig Stanford
- Robert W. Sussman
- Michael Tomasello
- Omar Wasow
- Sherwood Washburn
- David P. Watts
- Richard Wrangham
Japanese primatology
Origins
The discipline of Japanese primatology was developed out of animal ecology. It is mainly credited to Kinji Imanishi 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
The Japanese discipline of primatology tends to be more interested in the social aspects of primates. 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.
The traditional and cultural aspects of Japanese science lend
themselves to an “older sibling” mentality. It is believed that animals
should be treated with respect, but also a firm authority. This is not
to say that the Japanese study of primatology is cruel – far from it –
just that it does not feel that their subjects should be given
reverential treatment.
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.
Methods
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 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
Primatology in sociobiology
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 before 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 monkeys, 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.
From grooming to speaking
Although social grooming
is observed in many animal species, the grooming activities undertaken
by primates are not strictly for the elimination of parasites.
In primates, grooming is a social activity that strengthens
relationships. The amount of grooming taking place between members of a
troop is a potent indicator of alliance formation or troop solidarity. Robin Dunbar suggests a link between primate grooming and the development of human language. The size of the neocortex
in a primate’s brain correlates directly to the number of individuals
it can keep track of socially, be it a troop of chimps or a tribe of
humans.
This number is referred to as the monkeysphere.
If a population exceeds the size outlined by its cognitive limitations,
the group undergoes a schism. Set into an evolutionary context, the
Dunbar number shows a drive for the development of a method of bonding
that is less labor-intensive than grooming: language. As the
monkeysphere grows, the amount of time that would need to be spent
grooming troopmates soon becomes unmanageable. Furthermore, it is only
possible to bond with one troopmate at a time while grooming. The
evolution of vocal communication solves both the time constraint and the
one-on-one problem, but at a price.
Language allows for bonding with multiple people at the same time
at a distance, but the bonding produced by language is less intense.
This view of language evolution covers the general biological trends
needed for language development, but it takes another hypothesis to
uncover the evolution of the cognitive processes necessary for language.
Modularity of the primate mind
Noam Chomsky’s concept of innate language addresses the existence of universal grammar, which suggests a special kind of “device” all humans are born with whose sole purpose is language. Fodor’s
modular mind hypothesis expands on this concept, suggesting the
existence of preprogrammed modules for dealing with many, or all aspects
of cognition. Although these modules do not need to be physically
distinct, they must be functionally distinct. Orangutans are currently
being taught language at the Smithsonian National Zoo using a computer system developed by primatologist Dr. Francine Neago in conjunction with IBM.
The massive modularity theory thesis posits that there is a huge
number of tremendously interlinked but specialized modules running
programs called Darwinian algorithms,
or DA. DA can be selected for just as a gene can, eventually improving
cognition. The contrary theory, of generalist mind, suggests that the
brain is just a big computer that runs one program, the mind. If the
mind is a general computer, for instance, the ability to use reasoning
should be identical regardless of the context. This is not what is
observed. When faced with abstract numbers and letters with no “real
world” significance, respondents of the Wason card test
generally do very poorly. However, when exposed to a test with an
identical rule set but socially relevant content, respondents score
markedly higher. The difference is especially pronounced when the
content is about reward and payment. This test strongly suggests that
human logic is based on a module originally developed in a social
environment to root out cheaters, and that either the module is at a
huge disadvantage where abstract thinking is involved, or that other
less effective modules are used when faced with abstract logic.
Further evidence supporting the modular mind has steadily emerged
with some startling revelations concerning primates. A very recent
study indicated that human babies and grown monkeys approach and process
numbers in a similar fashion, suggesting an evolved set of DA for
mathematics (Jordan). The conceptualization of both human infants and
primate adults is cross-sensory, meaning that they can add 15 red dots
to 20 beeps and approximate the answer to be 35 grey squares. As more
evidence of basic cognitive modules are uncovered, they will undoubtedly form a more solid foundation upon which the more complex behaviors can be understood.
In contradiction to this, neuroscientist Jaak Panksepp
has argued that the mind is not a computer nor is it massively modular.
He states that no evidence of massive modularity or the brain as a
digital computer has been gained through actual neuroscience, as opposed
to psychological studies. He criticises psychologists who use the
massive modularity thesis for not integrating neuroscience into their
understanding.
The primate theory of mind
Primate behavior, like human behavior, is highly social and ripe with the intrigue of kingmaking,
powerplays, deception, cuckoldry, and apology. In order to understand
the staggeringly complex nature of primate interactions, we look to theory of mind. Theory of mind asks whether or not an individual recognizes and can keep track of information asymmetry amongst individuals in the group, and whether or not they can attribute folk psychological states to their peers. If some primates can tell what others know and want and act accordingly, they can gain advantage and status.
Recently, chimpanzee theory of mind has been advanced by Felix Warneken of the Max Planck Institute.
His studies have shown that chimpanzees can recognize whether a
researcher desires a dropped object, and act accordingly by picking it
up. Even more compelling is the observation that chimps will only act if
the object is dropped in an accidental-looking manner: if the
researcher drops the object in a way that appears intentional, the chimp
will ignore the object.
In a related experiment, groups of chimps were given rope-pulling
problems they could not solve individually. Warneken’s subjects rapidly
figured out which individual in the group was the best rope puller and
assigned it the bulk of the task. This research is highly indicative of
the ability of chimps to detect the folk psychological state of
“desire”, as well as the ability to recognize that other individuals are
better at certain tasks than they are.
However primates do not always fare so well in situations
requiring theory of mind. In one experiment pairs of chimpanzees who had
been close grooming partners were offered two levers. Pressing one
lever would bring them food and another would bring their grooming
partner food. Pressing the lever to clearly give their grooming partner
much-wanted food would not take away from how much food they themselves
got. For some reason, the chimps were unwilling to depress the lever
that would give their long-time chums food. It is plausible but unlikely
that the chimps figured there was finite food and it would eventually
decrease their own food reward. The experiments are open to such
interpretations making it hard to establish anything for certain.
One phenomenon which would indicate a possible fragility of
theory of mind in primates occurs when a baboon gets lost. Under such
circumstances, the lost baboon generally makes "call barks" to announce
that it is lost. Previous to the 1990s it was thought that these call
barks would then be returned by the other baboons, similar to the case
is in vervet monkeys.
However, when researchers studied this formally in the past few years
they found something surprising: Only the baboons who were lost would
ever give call barks. Even if an infant was wailing in agony just a few
hundred meters away, its mother who would clearly recognise its voice
and would be frantic about his safety (or alternatively run towards her
infant depending on her own perceived safety), would often simply stare
in his direction visibly agitated. If the anguishing baboon mother made
any type of call at all, the infant would instantly recognise her and
run to her position. This type of logic appears to be lost on the
baboon, suggesting a serious gap in theory of mind of this otherwise
seemingly very intelligent primate species. However, it is also
possible that baboons do not return call barks for ecological reasons,
for example because returning the call bark might call attention to the
lost baboon, putting it at greater risk from predators.
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.
Women in primatology
Women
receive the majority of Ph.Ds in primatology. Londa Schiebinger,
writing in 2001, estimated that women made up 80 percent of graduate
students pursuing Ph.Ds 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”.
Changing stereotypes
With attention to Darwin’s perception about sexual selection, it was perceived that sexual selection
acted differently on females and males. Early research emphasized
male-male competition for females. It is widely believed that males tend
to woo females, and that females were passive. For years this was the
dominant interpretation, emphasizing competition among dominant males
who controlled territorial boundaries and maintained 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".
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.
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 (pr.
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.
Six features of feminist science that characterize contemporary primatology (Fedigan)
- Reflexivity: sensitivity to context and cultural bias in scientific work.
- “The female point of view”
- Respect for nature and an ethic cooperation with nature
- Move away from reductionism
- Promote humanitarian values rather than national interests
- Diverse community, accessible and egalitarian
Schiebinger suggests that only two out of the six features
characteristic of feminism. One of them is the discussion of the
politics of participation and the attention placed on females as
subjects of research.
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.
Academic resources
Societies
- American Society of Primatologists
- European Federation for Primatology
- International Primatological Society
