A fun story about further research into the malicious forward planning of the infamous stone-throwing chimp, Santino, in the Furuvik Zoo, north of Stockholm. Over the course of a year, researchers from Lund University, tracked his ability to camouflage his intentions to throw stones at unsuspecting zoo visitors by curbing his aggressive displays so as to reduce clues to immediate intent, and to build clumps of hay on the perimeter of his enclosure to hide caches of stones, ready for the next onslaught. It clearly seems that he has some degree of foresight and planning or the future, rather similar to the behaviour of the crows that I mentioned in CLEVER CORVIDS where they provisioned for a future breakfast by caching food from the night before only if they had been treated in a curmudgeonly fashion the day before. The question, as ever, with these studies, is what degree of theory of mind the chimp needs to be able to enact such strategies. It is not necessary for him to be thinking "I will hide the stones here because they will not think that the hay is hiding missiles" thereby profiting from the human visitors' false state of knowledge.
Because the paper is published in PLoS 1 it is freely available for those who want to read in full. The URL is:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036782
Otherwise a good precis of the research can be accessed here:
http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=120108&CultureCode=en
Interview Podcast with George Miller
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!
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!
Friday, 11 May 2012
Tuesday, 8 May 2012
Psychopathy linked to specific structural abnormalities in the social brain
In the chapter INSIDE THE BRAIN in NOT A CHIMP I detail significant anatomical and cell differences between humans and chimps relating to parts of the brain responsible for social cognition: the so-called 'social brain'. Here, Nigel Blackwood, from King's College, London, reveals results from MRI studies of prisoners with the 'cold' or psychopathic form of anti-social personality disorder and shows structural abnormalities in parts of the prefrontal cortex and the temporal pole. he claims this is the first detailed study to relate psychopathy to deficits in the 'social brain' .http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-psychopathy-linked-specific-abnormalities-brain.html
Friday, 4 May 2012
Extra gene drove instant leap in human brain evolution
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2012-05-extra-gene-drove-instant-human.html
In NOT A CHIMP I devote one chapter, called MORE IS BETTER, to the extent to which phenomena like gene duplication have driven human evolution and widened the genomic gap between humans and our near neighbours - chimpanzees. Evan Eichler's work was heavily mentioned in the book and in this recent report on his work with Franck Polleux, an expert in brain development at The Scripps Research Institute, they make trenchant claims for the dramatic effects of gene duplication at crucial points in our hominin evolutionary history that may have been very important in brain growth and development - and unique human brain anatomy. The gene in question is SRGAP2. Here's a section of this Medical Express report which encapsulates what happened and why it may be very important:
""There are approximately 30 genes that were selectively duplicated in humans," said Franck Polleux. "These are some of our most recent genomic innovations."
Intriguingly, many of these genes appear to play some role in the developing brain. Polleux and Evan Eichler, a genome scientist at the University of Washington, focused their expertise and attention on one of the genes known as SRGAP2. This gene has, in fact, been duplicated at least twice during the course of human evolution, first about 3.5 million years ago and then again about 2.5 million years ago.
The new work shows that the second and relatively recent duplication event produced only a partial copy of the gene. This copy acts at exactly the same time and place as the original, allowing it to interact with and block the ancestral gene's function.
"This innovation couldn't have happened without that incomplete duplication," Eichler said. "Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication of this gene created a novel function 'at birth'."
Interestingly, the novel gene appears to have arisen just as the fossil record shows a transition from human's extinct Australopithecus ancestors to the genus Homo (as in Homo sapiens), which led to modern humans. That's also when the brains of our ancestors began to expand and when dramatic changes in cognitive abilities are likely to have emerged."
The gene is involved in neuronal migration to appropriate parts of the developing brain from the epithelium from which neurons bud off. It also seems to govern the complexity of projections any neuron can develop - a key factor in eventual complexity of interconnectivity of neurons - network.
In NOT A CHIMP I devote one chapter, called MORE IS BETTER, to the extent to which phenomena like gene duplication have driven human evolution and widened the genomic gap between humans and our near neighbours - chimpanzees. Evan Eichler's work was heavily mentioned in the book and in this recent report on his work with Franck Polleux, an expert in brain development at The Scripps Research Institute, they make trenchant claims for the dramatic effects of gene duplication at crucial points in our hominin evolutionary history that may have been very important in brain growth and development - and unique human brain anatomy. The gene in question is SRGAP2. Here's a section of this Medical Express report which encapsulates what happened and why it may be very important:
""There are approximately 30 genes that were selectively duplicated in humans," said Franck Polleux. "These are some of our most recent genomic innovations."
Intriguingly, many of these genes appear to play some role in the developing brain. Polleux and Evan Eichler, a genome scientist at the University of Washington, focused their expertise and attention on one of the genes known as SRGAP2. This gene has, in fact, been duplicated at least twice during the course of human evolution, first about 3.5 million years ago and then again about 2.5 million years ago.
The new work shows that the second and relatively recent duplication event produced only a partial copy of the gene. This copy acts at exactly the same time and place as the original, allowing it to interact with and block the ancestral gene's function.
"This innovation couldn't have happened without that incomplete duplication," Eichler said. "Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication of this gene created a novel function 'at birth'."
Interestingly, the novel gene appears to have arisen just as the fossil record shows a transition from human's extinct Australopithecus ancestors to the genus Homo (as in Homo sapiens), which led to modern humans. That's also when the brains of our ancestors began to expand and when dramatic changes in cognitive abilities are likely to have emerged."
The gene is involved in neuronal migration to appropriate parts of the developing brain from the epithelium from which neurons bud off. It also seems to govern the complexity of projections any neuron can develop - a key factor in eventual complexity of interconnectivity of neurons - network.
Tuesday, 1 May 2012
Josh Klein's TED talk on the intelligence of crows
Monday, 23 April 2012
Ravens remember relationships they had with others
In the chapter CLEVER CORVIDS in NOT A CHIMP I mention the research, on ravens, of theory of mind in ravens by Tomas Bugnyar and colleagues. Here is yet another offering from this camp that points to extensive memory of social relationships in ravens and yet another example of he casual denigration of avian minds by the use of the term "bird-brained"!!
A quote from the Physorg article sums it up:-
"Ravens respond to calls from previously unknown individuals with even lower and rougher calls and thus try to increase the acoustic perceivable body-size – also in humans larger people have lower voices than smaller ones and angry humans rougher voices. While it was known that mammals change their voices based on the relationship they share with others, the researchers were now able to show for the first time that also birds change their calls according to relationship quality.
The duration of the memory is beyond the previously estimated ability for birds; the ability to remember relationship valence has been shown for the first time in animals."
A quote from the Physorg article sums it up:-
"Ravens respond to calls from previously unknown individuals with even lower and rougher calls and thus try to increase the acoustic perceivable body-size – also in humans larger people have lower voices than smaller ones and angry humans rougher voices. While it was known that mammals change their voices based on the relationship they share with others, the researchers were now able to show for the first time that also birds change their calls according to relationship quality.
The duration of the memory is beyond the previously estimated ability for birds; the ability to remember relationship valence has been shown for the first time in animals."
Thursday, 23 February 2012
Our Missing Genes
In a chapter titled LESS IS MORE in my book NOT A CHIMP I talk about a number of loss-of-function mutations in the human genome where a gene that functions in our primate cousins has become silenced in us. Turned into a pseudogene. Sometimes this can lead to disease and sometimes it can be shown that it is adaptive - part of the evolution of our genome. In this report on a recent SCIENCE paper, the research group found over 1000 genuine loss-of-function mutations in the human genome and suggested every European has at least 20 of them.
Friday, 27 January 2012
Tame Theory: Did Bonobos Domesticate Themselves?
In NOT A CHIMP I devote a chapter to the idea, first suggested to me by Richard Wrangham, that humans may have self-domesticated. I mention at length Wrangham's work with Brian Hare on the differences between bonobos and chimpanzees and their suggestion that self-domestication processes were very important in deriving those differences. Here, in Scientific American, is a useful article going over that ground, following a scientific paper co-authored by Wrangham, Hare and Wobber.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
