NOT A CHIMP

NOT A CHIMP
Click on the cover to link to OUP's e-catalogue then turn to the biology section.

Interview Podcast with George Miller

Interview Podcast with George Miller
Click on the pic to link to the NOT A CHIMP podcast on Blackwell's Website

Preface to "Not A Chimp: The Hunt For The Genes That Make Us Human"

In many ways, this book is born out of frustration for a professional career in popular science television where ideas about comparative primate cognition, and the similarities and differences between us and our primate relatives, have continually circled me but constantly evaded my grasp in terms of the opportunity to transform them into science documentary. On the plus side, keeping a watching brief for over a quarter of a century on subjects like comparative animal cognition and evolution allows you to watch a great deal of water flow under the bridge. Fashions come and fashions go - specifically, perspectives on the similarity - or otherwise - of human and ape minds.

I remember the first Horizon science documentary about the chimpanzee Washoe, the great ape communicator, using American Sign Language to bridge the species barrier. And, later, Kanzi the bonobo jabbing his lexicon. These were the apes, as Sue Savage-Rumbaugh has put it, that were "on the brink of the human mind".

I remember when the pre-print of Machiavellian Intelligence, by Andrew Whiten and Dick Byrne, plopped onto the doormat of the BBC Antenna science series office in 1988. Suddenly primatology had become a great deal more exciting. Could primates, and especially higher primates like chimpanzees, really be as full of guile, as dastardly, as cunning, and as manipulative as the eponymous Florentine politician? Could they really reach deep into the minds of other individuals to see what they believed and what they wanted, and turn that information into deception?

I remember discussing primate cognition with a young Danny Povinelli, as we sat finger-feeding ourselves shrimp gumbo and new potatoes out of plastic Tupperware containers in a Lafayette restaurant surrounded by an alligator-infested moat, before returning to his kingdom - the New Iberia Research Centre - where the University of Louisiana had lured him back to his native deep South by turning a chimpanzee breeding centre for medical laboratory fodder into a primate cognition laboratory with one of the largest groups of captive chimpanzees in the country. He looked like a kid who had just been thrown the keys to the tuck shop.

In those days Povinelli shared the zeitgeist - spread by Whiten's and Byrne's work, and started by Nick Humphrey and Alison Jolly before them - that, since the most exacting and potentially treacherous environment faced by chimpanzees and other primates was not physical, but the social environment of their peers, they had evolved a form of social cognition very much like our own, in order to deal with it. This was further elaborated into a full-blown "social brain" hypothesis by Robin Dunbar, who related brain neocortex size to social group size throughout the primates and up to man. Povinelli's early work reflects this optimism for the mental life of apes, but both ape-language and ape-cognition research was subjected to a cold douche of searching criticism during the 1990s, and misgivings set in regarding the effectiveness of the experiments that had been constructed to guage ape cognition. Now the worm has turned again, with a number of research groups emerging with bolder and bolder claims for the Machiavellian machinations of primate minds, only to be powerfully countered by the curmudgeonly skepticism, chiefly by Povinelli, that these researchers are merely projecting their mental life onto that of their subjects; that, rather in the frustrating manner of Zeno's arrow that could never quite reach its target because it continually halved its distance to it, no experiment constructed thus far can actually get inside the mind of a chimp and show us exactly what it does and doesn't know, or how much, about the minds of others or the way the physical world works. One influential part of the world of comparative animal cognition talks of a continuum between ape and human minds and shrinks the cognitive distance between us and chimps to almost negligible proportions, while another returns us to the unfashionable idea that human cognition is unique, among the primates, after all.

When I began writing this book the working title was "The 1.6% that makes us human". My aim had always been to scrutinize the impression put about in the popular science media that humans and chimps differ by a mere 1.6% in our genetic code - or even less - and that it therefore makes complete sense that this minuscule genetic difference translates into equally small differences in cognition and behaviour between apes and man. However, contemporary genome science and technology, over the last few years, have dramatically advanced the power and resolution with which scientists can investigate genomes, eclipsing the earlier days of genomic investigation that gave rise to the "1.6% mantra".

As with comparative cognitive studies, conclusions on chimp-human similarity and difference in genome research depend crucially on perspective. To look at the complete set of human chromosomes, side by side with chimpanzee chromosomes, at the level of resolution of a powerful light microscope, for instance, is to be overwhelmed by the similarity between them. Overwhelmed with a sense of how close our kinship is with the other great apes. True, our chromosome 2 is a combination of two chimp chromosomes - giving humans a complement of 23 chromosome pairs to 24 in chimps, gorillas and orang-utans - but even here you can see exactly where the two chimp chromosomes have fused to produce one. The banding patterns you visualize by staining the chromosomes match up with astonishing similarity - and that banding similarity extends to many of the other chromosomes in the two genomes. However, look at a recent map of the chromosomes of chimps and humans, aligned side by side, produced by researchers who have mapped all inversions - end-on-end flips of large chunks of DNA - and the chromosomes are all but blotted out by a blizzard of red lines denoting inverted sequence. Now you become overwhelmed by how much structural change has occurred between the two genomes in just 6 million years. True, not all inversions result in changes in the working of genes - but many do - and inversions might even have been responsible for the initial divergence of chimp ancestor from human ancestor.

The extent to which you estimate the difference between chimp and human genomes depends entirely on where you look and how deeply. Modern genomics technology has led us deep into the mine that is the genome and has uncovered an extraordinary range of genetic mechanisms, many of which have one thing in common. They operate to promote variability - they amplify differences between individuals in one species. We now know, for instance, that each human is less genetically identical to anyone else than we thought only three years ago. When we compare human genomes to chimpanzee genomes these mechanisms magnify genetic distance still further. I have tried, in this book, to follow in the footsteps of these genome scientists as they dig deeper and deeper into the "Aladdin's Cave" of the genome. At times the going gets difficult. Scientists, like any explorers, are prone to taking wrong turnings, getting trapped in thickets, and covering hard ground, before breaking through into new insights. I hope that those of you who recoil from genetics with all the visceral horror with which many regard the sport of pot-holing will steel yourselves and follow me as far as I have dared to go into Aladdin's Cave. For only then will you see the riches within and begin to appreciate, as I have, just how limited popular accounts of human-chimpanzee genetic difference really are. Let me try and persuade you that this is a journey, if a little arduous at times, that is well worth taking.

There are a number of scientists around the world who have the breadth and the vision to have begun the task of rolling genetics, comparative animal cognition, and neuroscience into a comprehensive new approach to the study of human nature and this is part, at least, of their story. They strive to describe the nature of humans in terms of the extent to which we are genuinely different to chimpanzees and the other great apes. Somehow, over 6 million years, we humans evolved from something that probably resembled a chimpanzee (though we cannot yet be entirely sure) and the answer to our evolution has to lie in a growing number of structural changes in our genome, versus that of the chimpanzee, that have led to the evolution of a large number of genes that have, effectively, re-designed our brains and led to our advanced and peculiar human cognition.

If you don't believe me, hand this book to your nearest friendly chimpanzee and see what he makes of it!

Saturday, 14 January 2012

Scientists find link between gene and sensitivity to emotional environment

In NOT A CHIMP I detail research that looked at the tie-up between anxious personality traits and the carriage of a short repeat variant of the gene for the serotonin transporter molecule at the synapse. Here a group of scientists, principally at the University of Essex, carry the research forward in a very gratifying way. They find that carriers of the short repeat have a negative cognitive bias which can be trained by cognitive therapy to be more positive. So they tend to take more notice of negative or threatening information, and, conversely, blossom when they are subject to very supportive social experiences.

"Professor Elaine Fox, who led the study, explained: "Our findings suggest that people with a short serotonin transporter gene are likely to be far more reactive to both very negative situations, such as a car crash, and very positive ones, such as a very supportive relationship. This supports the idea of short serotonin transporter genes as 'adaptability', rather than 'vulnerability', genes. They may not only increase the risk of an individual developing emotional vulnerability in a negative environment but also increase the chances of them benefiting from a supportive environment, compared to people with the long form...People with a long serotonin transporter gene are likely to be less influenced by their emotional environment, which may help to protect them from negative events but could also mean that they are less able to benefit from a positive environment."

Their studies support work from Oxford which suggests that "drugs used to treat anxiety and depression by lowering serotonin levels at the gap between nerve cells (such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) might work by reducing a patient's negative attention bias, causing them to adopt a more positive outlook on life that leads to a decrease in anxiety and depression."

""This opens the door to the idea of personalized treatments for anxiety disorders. Information about the genotype and cognitive biases of a patient could be used to inform decisions about which treatments, such as ABM and cognitive behavioural therapy, are likely to be most effective," Professor Fox said."

Friday, 30 December 2011

I know something you don’t know – and I will tell you!

The battle in comparative cognitive psychology has raged for years about what chimpanzees, and other species, do and don't know about the minds of other con-specifics. In NOT A CHIMP I took a dismal view of a chimp's ability to "mind-read" but evidence continues to be offered which is much more optimistic about the contents of a chimpanzee's mind and its ability to get some inkling of the state of mind of others - that their knowledge or ignorance of a situation, for instance, may differ from their own. In this report, from 30-odd chimps in the wild, researchers from the University of St. Andrews and Leipzig present evidence that chimps who know about a potential source of danger - a snake in the grass for instance - will preferentially warning-call to other chimps in the immediate neighbourhood if they think they are ignorant of the presence of the danger.

Thursday, 15 December 2011

Crows show advanced learning abilities

In the chapter CLEVER CORVIDS in NOT A CHIMP I detail cognitive psychology research on crows and other corvid birds which showed they have extraordinary powers of tool manufacture and use; understanding of deception; and planning for the future - otherwise known as mental time travel. After publication, Nathan Emery added to the list of corvid mental attributes by showing that ravens could solve the Aesop problem of water displacement to recover floating food. Here New Zealand researchers Hunt and Taylor team up with Emery and Clayton to demonstrate the same skill in New Caledonian crows who, without prior learning, seem to realize that dropping big stones into containers of water containing food will cause the food to rise until it can be retrieved using the beak. The paper is in the open access PLoS 1:

More information: Taylor AH, Elliffe DM, Hunt GR, Emery NJ, Clayton NS, et al. (2011) New Caledonian Crows Learn the Functional Properties of Novel Tool Types. PLoS ONE 6(12): e26887. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026887

Thursday, 1 December 2011

'Look at that!' -- ravens use gestures, too

In NOT A CHIMP I mention the research of Thomas Bugnyar and various colleagues, using ravens. Here he breaks down another species barrier by demonstrating that ravens are capable of meaningful gestures to and with objects in order to get the attention of the other member of the pair.

"For two years, Simone Pika und Thomas Bugnyar investigated the non-vocal behaviour of individually marked members of a wild raven community in the Cumberland Wildpark in Grünau, Austria. They observed that ravens use their beaks similar to hands to show and offer objects such as moss, stones and twigs. These distinct gestures were predominantly aimed at partners of the opposite sex and resulted in frequent orientation of recipients to the object and the signallers. Subsequently, the ravens interacted with each other, for example, by example billing or joint manipulation of the object.

This new study shows that differentiated gestures have especially evolved in species with a high degree of collaborative abilities. "Gesture studies have too long focused on communicative skills of primates only. The mystery of the origins of human language, however, can only be solved if we look at the bigger picture and also consider the complexity of the communication systems of other animal groups" says Simone Pika from the Max Planck Institute for Ornithology."

Reference: "Simone Pika & Thomas Bugnyar, The use of referential gestures in ravens (Corvus corax) in the wild, Nature Communications, November 29, 2011, 10.1038/ncomms1567

Researches find poop-throwing by chimps is a sign of intelligence

Bill Hopkins, from Emory University, Atlanta, is thew world-leader in the art and science of brain-scanning live chimpanzees. He has recently been comparing the brains of chimps that are good throwers - they are accurate and have a clear target in mind - and less adept chimps. They find that the proportion of white to grey matter is increased in the precentral gyrus - the relevant motor centre, but also in the chimp homologue to Broca's speech area in the left hemisphere. They also found that the better throwers were the better communicators. Could the brain organization that facilitated throwing have laid the foundations for the evolution of speech centres in the brain, they ask. Here's the abstract:

"Abstract
It has been hypothesized that neurological adaptations associated with evolutionary selection for throwing may have served as a precursor for the emergence of language and speech in early hominins. Although there are reports of individual differences in aimed throwing in wild and captive apes, to date there has not been a single study that has examined the potential neuroanatomical correlates of this very unique tool-use behaviour in non-human primates. In this study, we examined whether differences in the ratio of white (WM) to grey matter (GM) were evident in the homologue to Broca's area as well as the motor-hand area of the precentral gyrus (termed the KNOB) in chimpanzees that reliably throw compared with those that do not. We found that the proportion of WM in Broca's homologue and the KNOB was significantly higher in subjects that reliably throw compared with those that do not. We further found that asymmetries in WM within both brain regions were larger in the hemisphere contralateral to the chimpanzee's preferred throwing hand. We also found that chimpanzees that reliably throw show significantly better communication abilities than chimpanzees that do not. These results suggest that chimpanzees that have learned to throw have developed greater cortical connectivity between primary motor cortex and the Broca's area homologue. It is suggested that during hominin evolution, after the split between the lines leading to chimpanzees and humans, there was intense selection on increased motor skills associated with throwing and that this potentially formed the foundation for left hemisphere specialization associated with language and speech found in modern humans.

And for those who can access it, here's the link to the PTRS B series paper: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2011.0195

Thursday, 24 November 2011

Genetic study confirms: First dogs came from East Asia

In NOT A CHIMP I discuss the evidence that humans have self-domesticated. One animal model of the process is dogs. The suggestion is that, rather than humans cultivating wild wolves and domesticating them, the wolves did it themselves through a long process of commensalism around early human encampments. But where on the globe did that process begin and what type of wolf best represents the dog ancestor? There is a long-running battle, based on genetics and archaeology, between researchers who believe the Middle East was the cradle of dog domestication and those who prefer East Asia. Here, Peter Savolainen, from Sweden, presents strong genetic evidence that all dogs emanated from an area of wolf domestication in what they call the ASY region - Asia south of the Yangtze - in southern China. The article discusses no dates and does not debate the commensalism versus purposeful selection argument for how dogs acquired their domesticated traits.

Wednesday, 23 November 2011

'Language gene' speeds learning

In NOT A CHIMP I detail the discovery of the FOXP2 gene and its role in human language and the oro-facial muscular movements required to produce intelligible speech. Scientists at the Max Planck in Leipzig have been looking ever since for the answer to precisely how it works and have recently reported work on mice that have had the human version of the FOXP2 gene "knocked into" them. They prove to be better learners of maze-negotiating tasks than normal mice. But how can this lead to language? The team seem to be suggesting that human FOXP2 allows humans to learn the complex muscular movements that form speech - but it is hard to understand this, because, as Faraneh Vargha-Khadem (the scientist who has done all the work on articulation difficulties in families with FOXP2 mutation and speech and learning difficulties) says - such muscular control is involuntary. I suspect that further work on the basal ganglia will get us closer to the answer.