Are chimpanzees altruistic?

Part of possessing the Human Spark might be the inclination toward altruism – helping others even when there’s no benefit to yourself, and maybe even a cost. Obviously human beings have a general capacity to help; think of volunteers rushing to the aftermath of a natural disaster or a pedestrian helping an elderly lady across the street. But is this an impulse we share with other animals? A new study suggests that chimpanzees do help out other chimps – but are much more likely to help if the chimp in need basically asks for it.

In the experiment, chimps were separated in side-by-side clear booths. The researchers wanted to see if the animals would transfer a necessary tool from one to the other – they provided a stick to reel in a juice box and a straw to drink from it. Sometimes chimps spontaneously passed the tool to their partners. But if the recipient actively solicited help by reaching into its partner’s booth or clapping its hands, the giver was more likely to help. The social relationship between the two chimps did affect whether or not help was offered.

Are you surprised to learn that chimps communicate in this way? What do you think the difference is between this study’s observations and the voluntary altruism of human beings?

More information:

• PLoS One article: “Chimpanzees Help Each Other upon Request“

• New Scientist video: “Chimps happy to help – you just have to ask“

• Science Daily article: “Chimpanzees Help Each Other On Request But Not Voluntarily“

Photo by Aaron Logan

One of the ways The Human Spark investigates what makes us uniquely human is by looking at our closest living relatives, the other great apes. Scientists are attacking the question of how we became human from a number of new directions – in addition to analyzing the more traditional hard evidence of ancient fossils. This article in New Scientist magazine explains several ways researchers are gathering data from primate groups alive today to gain insights into early hominid evolution. Tune in to The Human Spark’s second episode to learn more. What do you think these kinds of inferences can add to our understanding of where we came from and how we became who we are?

• New Scientist: “Ape behavior reveals secrets of human evolution“

Watch below to learn more about her studies on chimp emotions and what these studies can tell us about the human spark.

When they aren’t distracted by unfamiliar camera crews, the chimps Lisa works are quite good at calmly working on computer games.

By Lisa A. Parr, Yerkes National Primate Research Center

It’s always a little nerve wracking when people come to visit the chimps. Despite the fact that the chimpanzees I study are extremely well-trained, follow simple verbal instructions, and would perform most of our tasks without the small amounts of sugar-free Kool-Aid that we give them as reinforcement (because they are fun), they are still powerful, wild animals with their own free will. You can almost never get a chimpanzee to do something it doesn’t want to do: they are too big, too strong, and almost certainly too smart. And if Murphy’s Law has anything to say about it, when you do want them to do something, you are definitely out of luck if there is a camera crew involved. Such is the situation when Alan Alda and the Human Spark filming crew recently visited my lab at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta, Georgia.

Lisa and Alan observe a chimp working on a facial expressions task. The animal is looking at computer-generated faces like the one on the screen beside them.

In my research on social cognition, I am interested in what kinds of information chimpanzees garner from faces. Can they tell different individual chimpanzees apart if presented only with their faces? Do they recognize different categories of facial expressions, and if so, how? Ultimately, my lab is interested in drawing parallels between human and chimpanzee facial expressions and the extent to which they may be involved in communicating about emotion.  To do this, we have trained six chimpanzees to discriminate images on a computer monitor by selecting those that match using a joystick-controlled cursor. We have shown that chimpanzees discriminate faces and facial expressions much like humans do, using the entire configuration of facial features, and particularly features related to the shape of the mouth.

While this might sound like it’s straight out of the movie Project X, the chimpanzees actually learn this task very quickly and perform extremely well, even when we make the tasks quite challenging. Well, that is to say on a typical day. On this day, however, two large male chimpanzees (that have been part of my research program for almost 15 years) were confronted by several unfamiliar men holding expensive video equipment.

Lisa Parr (right) and Alan Alda (center) attempt to work on a computer task with a distracted chimp as cameraman Peter Hoving films. Photo: Maggie Villiger

To compose the scene (the producers thought it was a good idea at the time), Alan and I were positioned directly in front of the 1 ¼ inch thick Plexiglas window that separates the chimpanzee portion of my testing room, where the chimpanzees have their own computer, from the human-tester portion of the room. We had unintentionally created what Alan later referred to as his “King Kong moment” (forgetting for now that King Kong was actually a gorilla).

The chimps were more interested in being tough guys in front of the film crew than doing their usual computer tasks.

You see, chimpanzees are extremely territorial in the wild. So, instead of sitting and diligently showing off their computer-skills, as they would on a regular day, these two chimpanzees did what any self-respecting male chimpanzee would do: try and intimidate the group of strangers with their characteristic bluff-display. Such a display consists of chimpanzees standing bipedally (on both legs), puffing out their hair (piloerection), swaying back and forth, charging at the offending parties, hooting and screaming loudly, and throwing any objects that are within reach. These displays are demonstrations of sheer power and, in the wild, males use them to reinforce their dominance, intimidate rivals, and aid in coalition formation. I’ve seen these displays so often that I sometimes forget how awesome they are, not to mention when there is only 1 ¼ inch of Plexiglas separation between us!

Needless to say, Alan and I survived, although the chimpanzees won this contest (again), and the cameraman’s skills prevailed as his nerves were tested holding the camera steady despite the large, blurry black figures jumping back and forth in his lens. So, for the rest of the afternoon, instead of working quietly on their tasks, the chimpanzees frolicked and played, occasionally returning to remind us of who was in charge, and Alan and I were finally able to discuss chimpanzees, facial expressions, and the challenges researchers are faced with when trying to understand cognitive abilities in other animals.

by Vicky Horner, Living Links Center, Emory University

To many people, the words “culture” and “chimpanzee” don’t seem to go together. In fact, apart from starting with the same letter, they seem to have little connection at all. It’s therefore always slightly awkward when I have to explain what I do for a living to someone I don’t know very well. When I tell them that I am a psychologist, but that I work with chimpanzees and study their cultural behavior, I get the distinct impression that some folks think perhaps it is me, and not the chimps, that needs a psychologist!

The looks of surprise and confusion come from the fact that for many people the notion of culture equates with the fine arts, a night at the opera, or a refined palate for expensive wine. The idea of a chimpanzee at the opera sipping on a nice glass of chardonnay is pretty comical, even to me. We can all think of lots of examples of cultural differences between groups of people, but actually defining it in biological terms is a little more difficult. Psychologists, anthropologists and biologists have been arguing about culture for decades, and although we still don’t agree, we are getting a little closer to a definition that keeps most people happy. In order to understand culture, and more importantly to understand the evolution of our own cultural abilities, we need to stop getting caught up in examples of our cultural behavior and focus more on how cultural differences develop in the first place. At the fundamental level, culture is simply a collection of learned behaviors that have been passed on from one generation to the next, such as using chopsticks or knives and forks. For many years culture has been regarded as the hallmark of our species, the ‘human spark’ that separates us from other animals. However, before we can make claims about our own uniqueness, we need to check for similar sparks in other animals, starting with our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees, with whom we share a common ancestor and about 99 percent of our DNA.

One of the Yerkes chimps uses a tool to extract a tasty treat from one of Vicky’s puzzle boxes.

A few years ago, a group of scientists working in Africa got together to compare the behavior of the chimpanzees at their field sites. What they found was rather surprising. At every site, the chimpanzees displayed a totally different pattern of behavior, such as how they use tools and weapons. These differences were not easily explained by differences in habitat or genetics. The scientists therefore thought that perhaps these differences represented chimpanzee cultures, and arose because each group had invented different solutions to similar problems (like dipping for ants with long sticks or short sticks), and that these behaviors were maintained over generations by learning from one another.

However, it is very difficult to study culture and learning in the forest because there are so many variables, so at the Living Links Center we study chimpanzee culture in a more controlled captive environment. We study two social groups of chimpanzees who live in large indoor-outdoor enclosures with climbing structures, grass and toys.  We train one chimpanzee in each group to act as an “inventor” who solves a food puzzle (like how to get the banana out of the box with a stick) in one of two different ways. We then track if and how each new behavior spreads within the groups. These studies are important because they show us that chimpanzees have the brains for culture; they can learn and maintain new behaviors accurately enough to support the reports of culture from the wild. I am not claiming that there is no difference between going out to a Chinese restaurant to practice your chopstick skills and staying home to fish for termites in the back yard, but the fundamental psychological mechanism and the evolutionary driving force behind the two is the same.

Alan tries his hand at a puzzle box, though he’s not quite as motivated as a typical chimp to extract the M&M.

So what does all this mean for the human spark? To me there is no single spark that separates us from chimpanzees; we are intricately connected by our common ancestry. The differences between us arise from thousands of tiny differences in the frequency and contexts in which we do things. For example, we imitate one another constantly; chimpanzees imitate each other sometimes. We take other people’s perspectives on situations frequently; chimpanzees take another’s perspective sometimes. We empathize frequently, they empathize in some contexts. It is all of these little tweaks here and there that make up the human spark.

On a final note, I’d like to emphasize the importance of not falling into the trap of thinking that we are the ultimate and desirable endpoint of evolution. Chimpanzees and humans have both been evolving form our common ancestor for the last 5 million years. They may not be at the opera, but chimpanzee culture is remarkable in comparison to other species. We also have a habit of measuring their abilities against our own human checklist in the quest for the human spark. But what would happen if we measured ourselves on a chimpanzee checklist; would we find a “chimpanzee spark”? How do you measure up to this five-year-old chimpanzee?

The Human Spark crew films Alan Alda and Dan Gilbert deep in conversation. Photo: Maggie Villiger

Walking the dog this morning and enjoying the sound of birds singing reminded me of an entertaining exchange Alan had with Dan Gilbert of Harvard University, and author of the book Stumbling on Happiness. The birds sounded happy, but of course we can’t infer that: the real reason for their singing is to find a mate or defend a territory, and so get to pass on the genes for singing.

Dan and Alan were chatting on the Weeks Bridge over the Charles River about Dan’s top pick for what makes us human: the ability to “prospect,” the opposite of retrospect — in other words, to think about the future, “to explore alternative worlds without having to live in them.” While Dan agrees that other animals can look forward in time “in very small amounts,” we do it “orders of magnitude differently and better than any other animal.”

There were acorns on the ground around the bridge, and I’d given one to Alan to remind him to ask Dan a question about whether squirrels are thinking about the coming winter when they bury nuts.

Photo by Diliff, under a CC license

Alan: So what’s the squirrel doing when it plants the nut?

Dan Gilbert: It’s planting a nut, in the here and now, because the day is getting shorter, less light is hitting the little squirrel eye and going into its little squirrel brain, and so it runs the “nut burying program,” in the same way your computer can run programs without thinking about — knowing about the future. You know, if Ben Franklin were to come into the present and see a computer, he would say, there must be a little man inside it. There must be someone inside who knows what to do and what’s going to happen. That would be wrong.

We’re never tempted to anthropomorphize our computers because we understand the circuitry that’s making them run. We don’t understand squirrel circuitry or dog circuitry or cat circuitry well enough, and so we look at the dog, cat and squirrel and say it must know what’s coming, because if I were doing that, I’d do that because I know what’s coming.

Alan: So we assume the squirrel is at an unconscious level mapping where it put the nut, have we found out they just keep digging till they find the nut?

Dan: We can’t know for sure what the squirrel’s doing in its own mind, but I would suggest that squirrels do everything at the unconscious level because they’re not conscious, so everything they’re doing is some sort of program. A squirrel is an amazing automaton. Now that’s not with any disrespect to squirrels…

Alan: If we get letters from squirrels, I’m sending them to you. I don’t want to deal with squirrel letters…

Or chimpanzees, if it comes to that. There is much debate among researchers about whether chimps plan for the future. Mostly this revolves around whether chimps think how they might use a rock or stick in some later task, and the debate’s been further enlivened recently with the report of the chimp in the Danish zoo apparently stockpiling stones to throw at visitors. But even if they do think ahead an hour or two, while that’s more than any other animal that’s been studied, Dan Gilbert is pretty sure they’re not planning for retirement.

- Graham Chedd

Darwinium masillae

Our series attempts to locate when and where we transitioned into truly modern human beings — the elusive spark, if you will, that allowed us, here on our own tiny branch on the tree of life, to behave the way we do with all our various abilities and features. Part of this quest involves closely examining our direct ancient lineage, as well as our near and not-so-near cousins. Of course evolutionary history is filled with groups that split into various descendant lines as well as those that hit dead ends and fizzled out. These ancient family trees are pieced together through the fossil record. Looking at the various branches on these trees is one way scientists try to figure out the relationships between various animal ancestors and us.

Recent publications about a fossil called Ida provide the latest example of a creature that seems to have lived at one of those branching points where one group of animals was evolving into a recognizably different one. People in the media have jumped all over this beautifully preserved 47-million-year-old fossil, with some even calling it a “missing link.” Of course, there’s never a single missing link in the huge web of animal evolution, but it does appear that Ida, or Darwinium masillae, was a mammal who shared characteristics with the prosimians (such as lemurs) and also with anthropoids (such as monkeys and apes). Keep in mind, there’s a long, long time — and lots of evolution! — between when Ida lived and when our own species appeared on earth maybe 200,000 years ago.

What do you think of all the media hoopla about Ida and what she means?

• Research article: “Complete Primate Skeleton from the Middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and Paleobiology“
• Associated Press: “Early Skeleton Sheds Light on Primate Evolution“
• CNN: “Scientists Piece Together Human Ancestry“
• The Independent (UK): “The Big Question: Is ‘Ida’ really the missing link between humans and animals?“

Different animals look at the world with different eyes, literally. The colors a species can perceive is dictated by the types and number of visual pigments found in the retina. Humans and most primates are trichromats, meaning we have three pigment varieties that absorb light in our eyes and then transmit that information to the brain. Some birds and reptiles have four pigments, allowing them to perceive ultraviolet wavelengths that we can’t. And other mammals have just two pigments.

This article from Scientific American examines how our color vision system may have evolved. And through their experiments, authors Gerald Jacobs and Jeremy Nathans discovered some intriguing brain adaptability when new sensory inputs are added.

Over the course of our travels, several experts suggested our ability to mentally time travel to past happenings and future possibilities as one candidate for a uniquely human talent. Now a chimp named Santino at a Swedish zoo seems to be forcing a more nuanced picture of what types of anticipation and planning our closest relatives are capable of.

Santino gets riled up when his enclosure is swamped with human onlookers. So he takes matters into his own hands and hurls stones out at the crowds. But what’s intriguing is that he stockpiles rocks in the morning when he is calm and no visitors are peering in at him. He appears to be anticipating their arrival later in the day and his likely-to-result agitated emotional state. So he serenely builds caches of weapons for use later on.

Of course, our human talents didn’t just jump into existence out of thin air. It’s to be expected that foundations for our abilities can be found in other animals. Santino offers an interesting case study… and a reminder that just because we haven’t spotted a particular ability in other species, or figured out an adequate experiment to address the question, doesn’t mean it’s not there in some form.

LINKS

• Summary of Current Biology article by researcher Mathias Osvath
• BBC Article with link to radio interview with Mathias Osvath
• LA Times: “Stone-throwing chimpanzee displays humanlike planning abilities“
• New York Times: “Zoo Chimp Plans for His Visitors, Stockpiling Rocks“

Photo: www.vanessawoods.net

Researcher Brian Hare is a strong advocate for eliminating the chimpanzee pet trade, as we learned when we filmed with him at the North Carolina Zoo. After the recent news that a pet chimp violently attacked a woman in Connecticut, we asked Brian to further describe his stance for The Human Spark audience. Read on to learn why he is so strongly against anyone keeping a chimp for a pet.

The Science Behind Why Chimpanzees Are Not Pets

By Brian Hare & Vanessa Woods
Duke University, Department of Evolutionary Anthropology

Last month, a 200-pound male chimpanzee named Travis mauled a woman outside the home where he has been living with his “owner” Sandra Herold. Charla Nash was nearly killed by Travis and now has life-changing wounds to her face while Travis was stabbed by his owner with a butcher knife and shot dead by the police.

Was this incident preventable or just a freak accident? Should chimpanzees and other primates be kept as pets? What is the effect of the primate pet trade not only on the welfare of these “pets” but on their species survival in the wild?  To answer these questions I consider what science has to say and draw on both my own work on domestication and over 50 years of research by primatologists on wild chimpanzees.

Domesticated animals are biologically different

Most people keep domesticated animals, whether it’s a dog, cat or a cow.  We know the biological systems in their bodies that control stress responses are down-regulated relative to wild animals. This means that the average dog, cat, cow, etc. stays much more calm in a stressful situation than a wolf, lion or buffalo.  Because domesticated animals do not become as stressed, they rarely if ever attack humans compared to wild animals. It’s true that 23 Americans died last year from dog bites, but this statistic would be many times higher if the 68 million dog owners had instead lived in as close contact with wolves. By living together with us for thousands of years, domesticated animals have been bred to live together with humans relatively harmoniously.
Summary: Domestication is the process of breeding out aggression toward humans

Chimpanzees are not domesticated animals

Although chimpanzees share more DNA in common with humans than they do with gorillas, they are not domesticated animals. So while a tiny percentage of pet dogs will bite a human, all chimpanzees and all primates will readily bite a human.  Moreover, chimpanzees in captivity can weigh between 150 and 220 pounds, live for over 60 years, and grow to be many times stronger than any human.  In the wild, chimpanzees spend a lot of time defending their social status –- they often seriously injure each other in fights (biting off fingers, testicles, face tissue, etc.) and are known to occasionally hunt and kill rivals and their infants.  After 50 years of research on wild chimpanzees we now know that, like people, while they are extremely social, have close family bonds and prefer peace they can also be extremely violent –- sometimes leading to lethal aggression (i.e. murder).
Summary: Wild chimpanzees kill each other…it is in their nature.

Photo: www.vanessawoods.net

Why do people think chimpanzees make good pets?

Baby chimpanzees look a lot like human babies. They have fingers and toes, and they laugh and pout –- they are adorable.  People who sell chimpanzees as pets sell babies because no one would ever buy a 200 pound adult chimpanzee. Travis was bought as a baby from a group of trainers who used infant chimpanzees in TV commercials and in children’s birthday parties. Chimpanzee breeders are in the business of selling chimpanzees (at around $50,000 each), not educating their customers about the hazards of pet ownership. In addition, Hollywood hires infant chimpanzees to star in movies that show them as cute human imitations. It is estimated there are over 700 pet chimpanzees in U.S. homes of unknown origin (i.e. many may have been smuggled illegally from Africa). Many of these chimps live decades in horrible conditions and present a real risk to neighbors. ALL primates potentially carry diseases deadly to humans including Herpes B, Yellow Fever, Monkeypox, Ebola virus, Marburg virus, SIV, HIV and Tuberculosis.
Summary: Breeders and Hollywood portray infant chimpanzees as suitable pets

What laws exist to protect the public from the hazards of pet primates?

Currently there are no federal laws in the United States preventing the sale or purchase of a chimpanzee or other great apes born outside of Africa after 1976. There are state laws in the U.S. preventing the sale of primates such as chimpanzees, but loopholes exist in almost every state. Chances are, your neighbor can legally own a pet chimpanzee and that infant chimpanzees, which are highly endangered in their natural habitat in Africa, are still being smuggled into the U.S. to be sold as pets.
Summary: No federal law prevents the sale or purchase of chimpanzees in U.S.

What message do U.S. chimpanzee pet owners send to Africa?

Chimpanzees are highly endangered but still live in tropical forest in over a dozen African countries. It is illegal to own, purchase or sell a chimpanzee in all of these countries.  Unfortunately, an international trade rages in Africa –- including the sale of great apes like chimpanzees.  Hunters shoot mothers and sell their bodies as meat to rich city dwellers who can afford the luxury.  They pull babies off the backs of their dead mothers to sell in the markets as pets. However, these pet traders are doing nothing worse than what is done in the United States legally: baby chimpanzees are pulled off their mothers’ backs and sold as pets.  I have had Africans who have seen U.S. television shows with Hollywood chimpanzees dressed in clothing ask me why people in the U.S. can have chimpanzees as pets while someone in Africa cannot… they wonder why chimpanzees in the United States are not protected given the fact that they are so endangered.
Summary: U.S. pet chimpanzees seem hypocritical to Africans who know they need protection

You can help. Send a letter to your senators urging them to support the Captive Primate Safety Act that recently passed in the U.S. House of Representatives.

More in the news:

• Editorial by Jane Goodall in the Los Angeles Times: “Loving Chimps to Death“
• AP article: “House Tightens Fed Controls Over Pet Primate Trade“
• MSNBC Video on a visit to a woman who owns two chimps: “Living with Chimps“

Organizations working to help orphan chimpanzees:

• Chimpanzee Sanctuary Northwest
• Friends of Bonobos
• The Jane Goodall Institute
• Pan African Sanctuary Alliance