**Edited Mon 22, 2008

The purpose of Science is to provide answers to questions that are not immediately apparent to us. For this, we employ the Scientific Method. The Scientific method involves thinking out all possible hypotheses that might be a solution to the subject, and then categorically proving them incorrect, until there is only one left that cannot be proven false. Indeed, it is in the interest of Science to entertain all possibilities for as long as possible, but sometimes, some people take it too far.

One such hypothesis was raised in the final decades of the last century. As we started studying gorillas and chimpanzees, the idea that one day we may be able to communicate with them using a grammar-rich language became fanciful. Several groups of scientists and animal enthusiasts began long-term studies on these animals (in captivity) and found that we could expand their behaviour to a lot more than what they exhibit in the wild.

But as linguistics and the neurosciences made progress, case after case of chimp pidgin were shot down. Most of the trainers and researches who made such claims eventually backed out. But a few people claim even today what they did back in the 80s and 90s was correct.

Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, a primatologist, staunchly believes in the existence of the so-called “great ape language”. An article from the site “Peace, Earth & Justice News” reads:

It comes as no surprise, then, that chimpanzees would have an interest in their own well-being. Last year, scientist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh interviewed bonobo chimpanzees who had learned to use language about their own wants and needs—in short, about their welfare. Their responses included spending their lives with their friends and loved ones and specifically living free from the fear of being harmed by humans. The interests of chimpanzees, it seems, echo those of many human petitioners seeking asylum before the law: the simple right to live free of oppression.

The article is titled “Great Apes Deserve Protection”.

Indeed they do! But maintaining objectivity in Science is key. Thousands of the scientists who study animals allow their love for these creatures to interpret their observations. We’ve all seen the likes of PETA and and other organizations make absurd unscientific claims, regardless of their intentions. I saw a clip of Jane Goodall (a person I respect) saying that she believes in the existence of big-foot, though she knows herself that there is no proof for it.

There is nothing wrong with having such beliefs. I am quite certain that almost all pet owners believe that their animal communicates with them in detail also. But there is something very wrong with perpetuating misguided ideas without evidence.

If you watch the TED talk video of Rumbaugh (which is hugely popular for some reason), you can see her convinced that rote memorization, Pavlov style, is proof of the complex language organ humans are said to possess.

In the early 70s, a few researchers hiking through the jungles of Côte d’Ivoire found chimps in the area cracking nuts using very specific tools. On further investigation, they found that the rituals surrounding the selection of the rocks as tools were even more meticulous than previous imagined. Rocks of just the right size and shape would be further molded and then set upon an anvil. Nuts from all around the jungle, miles out, would then travel inwards to be opened by this and only this, cracker on anvil. This discovery was considered a landmark in science and was the impetus to the thousands of studies conducted forth.

The question raised when we later found the same animals playing pac-man (as in the above video), or performing complex tasks as in all those kids movies was how come the primates in the wild are so dumb? How come all they can do is crack open a nut, whereas Koko the gorilla or Nim Chimpsky can walk blind people and serve us food?

But the difference between the latter and the former was that of training. Us humans and our primate cousins prefer our world organized (us more so than them). Our brain rewards us for preserving things in patterns, like the clothes in your closet, or the notes in your notebook. When data presented to us is messy, our brain - the permutation machine - produces solutions that are illogical. When, on the other hand, you feed it patterns that it does not have to deliberate upon, it remains happy.

The same concept underlies the belief that people living in large cities with big buildings and grid-lined roads are generally smarter than countrymen or the tribals. Similarly, the Bonobo that draws huts when it wants to go to the shelter is living in a world that offers it knowledge in a much more agreeable format. It is simply better trained!

Steven Pinker also made a very good point in saying that a very large liability lies on the animal that humans call our closest relative to be very much like us. If somehow somewhere we were to find a living population of H. Habilis, then our expectations for chimpanzees and bonobos would be much lesser. And conversely, if somehow these animals were to completely disappear from our planet, then future scientists would try and communicate with macaques and lemurs.

**The Peace Earth & Justice News article mentioned is available at

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=7377&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Last 5 posts by Abhishek Bhatnagar

• Thank you Mr. Bush. No, really! - January 6th, 2009
• Where is the case for optimism? - December 29th, 2008
• Mutiny on a Chromosome - December 20th, 2008
• Conservation-ing - December 1st, 2008
• The life of a language - November 30th, 2008

Share: