Primatology.net

If you’ve been following Paulin Ngobobo’s (senior warden with the Congolese wildlife authorities) blog Gorilla Protection, you’ve already seen this great pictures… but I can’t help but spread the good news. A newborn mountain gorilla was born on February 17th, 2007 in the Mikeno sector in the Congo.

Here are the great pictures and info from Paulin’s website:

“The newborn has been named Ndeze (pronounced Deze), after a local tribal chief who died just two days before the birth. These photos were taken when Ndeze was just 4 days old.”

“Mother and baby are doing well, and are being protected by the Silverback Rugendo. The mother, Safari (which means Travel in Swahili), is closely guarded by Rugendo so we were very lucky to be able to take these photos and cause no disturbance whatsoever.”

“Here you can see Safari, Ndeze and Rugendo… he stays close at all times.”

“More great news on the horizon… the adult female Mburanumwe of the same family is also pregnant and due to give birth soon!”

BBC News recently reported on a pretty interesting three-year long research project that is not the typical non-human primate-focused research we usually highlight on this site, but I couldn’t resist bringing it up. The project, FEELIX Growing, a multi-national project is aiming to create robots that read and react to humans in an appropriate manner.

Dr. Lola Canamero, coordinator of the project, from the University of Hertfordshire:

“We are most interested programming and developing behavioural capabilities, particularly in social and emotional interactions with humans.”

Here’s the project summary:

“If robots are to be truly integrated in humans’ everyday environment in order to provide services such as company, caregiving, entertainment, patient monitoring, aids in therapy, etc., they cannot be simply designed and taken off the shelf to be directly embedded into a real-life setting. Adaptation to incompletely known and changing environments and personalization to their human users and partners are necessary features to achieve successful long-term integration. This integration would require that, like children (but on a shorter time-scale), robots develop embedded in the social environment in which they will fulfill their roles. The overall goal of this project is the interdisciplinary investigation of socially situated development from an integrated or global perspective, as a key paradigm towards achieving robots that interact with humans in their everyday environments in a rich, flexible, autonomous, and user-centred way. To achieve this general goal we set the following specific objectives:

1. Identification of scenarios presenting key issues and typologies of problems in the investigation of global socially situated development of autonomous (biologically and robotic) agents.
2. Investigation of the roles of emotion, interaction, expression, and their interplays in bootstrapping and driving socially situated development, which includes implementation of robotic systems that improve existing work in each of those aspects, and their testing in the key identified scenarios.
3. Integration of (a) the above capabilities in at least 2 different robotic systems, and (b) feedback across the disciplines involved.
4. Identification of needs and key steps towards achieving standards in: (a) the design of scenarios and problem typologies, (b) evaluation metrics, (c) the design of robotic platforms and related technology that can be realistically integrated in people’s everyday life.

FEELIX GROWING takes a highly interdisciplinary approach that combines theories, methods, and technology from developmental and comparative psychology, neuroimagery, ethology, and autonomous and developmental robotics, to investigate how socially situated development can be brought to robots that grow up and adapt to humans in everyday environments. We expect to have a significant impact on the scientific community, on two grounds. On the one hand, our research focus poses an important and as-yet largely unexplored scientific question that is increasingly recognized as a keystone in the development of human-oriented social technology and in the understanding of humans, and can contribute to the advancement of entertainment, developmental, service, and rehabilitation robotics. On the other hand, our strongly interdisciplinary effort could make important contributions to a number of disciplines and set the grounds towards long-term collaborations among them.”

The description of the robot itself is quite reminiscent of a family pet (or a service animal) in that it is

“to be truly integrated in humans’ everyday environment in order to provide services such as company, caregiving, entertainment, patient monitoring, aids in therapy, etc.”

With that in mind, I couldn’t help but think about the vastly different perceptions science has on the animal mind (some may say that I’m a bit obsessed about it). It’s fascinating that we as a scientific community are on the verge of creating a machine (or more specifically software) with the capabilities to “learn from humans and respond in a socially and emotionally appropriate manner,” yet frequently deny this ability in non-human animals.

It’s frustrating to work with a scientist that comes into their lab telling stories of how when he got home last night, he could immediately tell that his golden retriever, Harry, did something wrong based upon the look on his face alone… and then proceed to close off all thought about the possibility that his subjects share those emotions. He of course will say that he is simply being objective. But couldn’t one argue that not taking into account all of your subject’s abilities be a hindrance to your objectivity?

This is not to suggest that we should bias our opinions based on what happens at home, but to suggest that we as humans are the only emotional beings appears to be a bit arrogant. I feel that not taking a chance and hiding behind scientific precedents (potentially to save one’s career) is a hindrance upon what we can discover. Sure new theories and thoughts can be intimidating, but exploring those in an objective manner is what we thrive upon… it’s why we do what we do.

Please don’t take this the wrong way, I’m not saying that this is something I’m seeing in the FEELIX Growing project, it’s just some thoughts that have popped up while reading about their interesting project… and it leaves me wondering what will come from this project in terms of the animal mind.

A big topic of conversation in zoos and other animal facilities is stress: Who suffers from it? What are the causes and repercussions? How can we identify it biologically? And what are the best ways to recognize the causes in hopes of alleviating the stress?

We have all seen stress in animals (including ourselves) appear in some form of aberrant behaviors and other various conditions: pacing, head tossing (with carnivores), hypergrooming, displaying (like throwing feces or vomit), losing sleep, breaking out into hives, and self mutilation, just to name a few. While these behaviors and conditions are visual, concern also lies in what we can’t easily see… chronic stress resulting in suppression of the immune system, high blood pressure, stress dwarfism, fibrosing cardiomyopathy, etc.

Robert Sapolsky of Stanford University has been researching the physiological effects of stress on health (with a nice set of publications including both scientific papers and popular books) for decades and recently presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science in San Francisco on Feb 17^th, 2006 (which I’m sad to say I missed). ScienceDaily highlights his research asking “Why Do Humans And Primates Get More Stress-related Diseases Than Other Animals?”

The bottom line is that:

“Primates are super smart and organized just enough to devote their free time to being miserable to each other and stressing each other out. But if you get chronically, psychosocially stressed, you’re going to compromise your health. So, essentially, we’ve evolved to be smart enough to make ourselves sick.”

Sapolsky helps us to think of it in terms of real stress versus psychological stress:

“During real stress – for example, something is intent on eating you and you’re running for your life – versus what your body does when you’re turning on the same stress response for months on end for purely psychosocial reasons.”

By constantly stressing ourselves out we are forcing our bodies to run in ways that are only intended for short bursts of time. We are essentially breaking down our system and becoming vulnerable to severe health problems (like those previously mentioned).

The baboon studies Sapolsky spearheaded are hugely relevant to this situation:

“We’ve found that baboons have diseases that other social mammals generally don’t have. If you’re a gazelle, you don’t have a very complex emotional life, despite being a social species. But primates are just smart enough that they can think their bodies into working differently. It’s not until you get to primates that you get things that look like depression.

The reason baboons are such good models is, like us, they don’t have real stressors. If you live in a baboon troop in the Serengeti, you only have to work three hours a day for your calories, and predators don’t mess with you much. What that means is you’ve got nine hours of free time every day to devote to generating psychological stress toward other animals in your troop. So the baboon is a wonderful model for living well enough and long enough to pay the price for all the social-stressor nonsense that they create for each other. They’re just like us: They’re not getting done in by predators and famines, they’re getting done in by each other.”

Needless to say, it’s important to understand more of the neuroscience behind stress. Sapolsky highlights some of the new research:

“It’s becoming clear that in the hippocampus, the part of the brain most susceptible to stress hormones, you see atrophy in people with post-traumatic stress disorder and major depression. There’s a ton of very exciting, very contentious work as to whether stress is causing that part of the brain to atrophy, and if so, is it reversible. Or does having a small hippocampus make you more vulnerable to stress-related traumas?”

Also…

“There are now studies showing that chromosomal DNA aging accelerates in young, healthy humans who experience something incredibly psychologically stressful. That’s a huge finding.”

Animals respond differently to every situation and stress is no exception. Understanding these differences, according to Sapolsky, is one of the most important areas of neuroscience research:

“This gets you into the realm of why do some people see stressors that other people don’t, and why, in the face of something that is undeniably a stressor to everybody, do some people do so much worse than others?”

It will be interesting to see how this research unfolds. Will it result in solid methods to understand how stress works? Will it lead to non-invasive biological markers of stress? Currently some researchers are relying on cortisol as a hormonal marker of stress. I’ve been to many a lecture reviewing the pros and cons of using cortisol in behavioral research, each generally ending with the same thought: cortisol is an accurate marker telling us that something is happening, but whether that something is bad stress (versus good stress, like riding a roller coaster) is still unknown. Some may say that the captive situations we’re using in research are more likely to prompt bad stress which would mean that cortisol is a better marker of bad stress than we are giving it credit for, but until that separation is apparent, we’re kind of back to the drawing board.

Understanding the animals that we work with can sometimes be a challenging job. Hopefully with all of the research going on in this field, we will be able to formulate a better understanding of what stress is (for each individual animal) so that we can do our best to identify and eliminate the stressors (and consequently the health problems).

Late in 2006 we posted about a new question on Canada’s blood donor questionnaire and now it turns out that Ireland is following suit. Anyone who has handled monkeys or their bodily fluids will not be able to donate blood.

The reason is the same: the Simian Foamy virus.

It is noted that while the virus is common among those who handle monkeys, it does not cause any illness. However Dr. William Murphy, Medical National Director of the Irish Blood Transfusion Service states:

“But it (prevalence) is quite high and therefore professional monkey handlers have been excluded from donating.”

In addition to this news, the Irish Medical News reported another interesting bit of information. Those dealing with hemochromatosis (who are otherwise healthy and have donated within the past two years) are able to donate once again. With this genetic disease that effects more than 10,000 people in Ireland, the body absorbs and stores too much iron resulting in a necessary treatment of regular phlebotomies. A pilot scheme will open in 2007 for hemochromatosis donors in hopes of eventually screening the entire population. (For the USA, the Food and Drug Administration has always allowed those with hereditary hemochromatosis to donate blood, provided that the blood establishment follow procedures specific to their variance.)

With this in mind, we can hope that there will be improvement in the screening process for Simian Foamy virus so that those who have handled monkeys or their bodily fluids will not be eliminated as donors on that point alone.

We’ve heard of modern medicine helping zoo animals in many ways (including Salome, a western lowland gorilla at the Bristol Zoo reproducing with the help of fertility drugs) and the Port Lympne Wild Animal Park adds another success to the list: cataract surgery. A howler monkey named Tolkein relied on the help of her caregivers in daily activities since she developed cataracts as a juvenile.

The surgery restoring her eye sight was a success and after her recovery, Tolkein was introduced to a new arrival at the Wild Animal Park, Clyde. About a week ago, the two became parents of baby who is yet to be named…. a baby that Tolkein can care for with the help of all of her senses.

Simon Jeffery, a headkeeper at the Wild Animal Park reports that,

“At just a week old the baby seems strong and healthy and is very interested in its surroundings and so far Tolkein is being a perfect mum.”

Read the rest of this entry »

Good news from WildlifeDirect‘s Senior Warden, Paulin Ngobobo: permission was granted to allow access to the Patrol Posts enabling the wardens to search for gorillas and establish current group status.

His most recent entry reads as follows (but be sure to check out his blog for more details documenting his efforts):

“Yesterday we finally managed to have a meeting with one of Laurent Nkunda’s rebel commanders. This meeting was to discuss the gorilla killings and to explain that this has to be stopped.

We set out with Rob Muir from Frankfurt Zoological Society at 0600 from Goma and teamed with MONUC Battalion Commander Lt. Colonel Rajeesh Parmar at 0800. Then we picked up a convoy of 3 UN patrol vehicles and one UN military observer (Milobs) armored vehicle and headed out for Jomba. This is one of the key gorilla sites close to the Uganda border where the rebels have their headquarters.

Shortly after our arrival at 10.30 a company of men came striding down the hilltop in camouflage gear – most of them carrying heavy weapons and rocket launchers. Quite a few were also carrying spears too. Myself, Rob, Lt. Col Parmar and Col Yav (of the Congolese army) met with Col Makenga of the rebel forces. Rob thanked MONUC for facilitating the meeting and thanked Makenga for agreeing to see us.

I was then able to talk with Makenga and Yav for about one hour, explaining who the rangers were, what we were trying to achieve in the park, and how important it is to protect the mountain gorillas and other wildlife even during times of war. I requested access to the Patrol Posts in the gorilla sector so that my rangers could search for the gorilla groups and establish their status.

Col. Makenga granted my request. The rebel commander’s pledge gives us some hope, and I will be carrying out our first patrols from Bikenge next Tuesday.”

Reading his first hand accounts of life as a Congolese Warden has put many things into perspective for those of use who work in ex-situ conservation (and everyone for that matter)… encounters with armed forces are certainly not everyday occurrences for most of us. Thank you and good luck to Paulin and his team!

Photo by Amy Fultz

Despite all residents receiving vasectomies prior to arrival at Chimp Haven, the caregivers stumbled upon a surprise yesterday morning… a healthy baby chimpanzee in the arms of her mother.

Chimp Haven reports that their next step is to determine paternity and address the failed vasectomy.

This is an interesting occurrence given the recent management allegations Chimp Haven has faced (discussed in previous posts/comments from Kambiz and DAB). The chimps (Teresa and the father, unknown at this time), sound like they are doing well at Chimp Haven, as successful breeding has generally been seen as a sign of good behavioral and physical health.

In an interesting and bold research move in Australia, dubbed the Human Zoo, humans have been put on display at the Adelaide Zoo. Dr. Carla Litchfield, a lecturer in psychology at the University of South Australia, will be monitoring her volunteers as they are housed in an unused orangutan enclosure for about a month. Groups of six are housed in the enclosure for a week at a time… including Dr. Litchfield.

The daily activities range from enrichment activities to veterinary check-ups, with visits from special guests (“Zoo-loopers”) on the weekends. Footage is available via web cam from Saturday through Thursday 9:30am to 5pm (Central Australian Daylight Time).

The project is intended to raise awareness about primate conservation, while the findings are intended to be a means to improve living conditions for captive apes. I must admit, I was a little surprised to see this research getting a chance to happen (I’m picturing the dozens of zoo meetings and mountains of IRB paperwork right now) and jealous that I am not a part of the research team collecting and analyzing the data. While comparative studies of life in a zoo versus life in a penitentiary are interesting, this project (however limited it is in time) puts humans in the same seat as the captive non-human primates from which we are learning so much. Hopefully this will go as planned and in the end, serve as a way to improve the quality of life for not just non-human primates, but all captive animals.

The Canadian blood donor form has a new question, “Have you, in your past or present job, taken care of or handled monkeys or their body fluids?” The Canadian Press reports that it’s being used as a precautionary measure to avoid the Simian Foamy Virus (SFV), thought to be contracted through bites and scratches from monkeys, chimpanzees, and baboons (which is interesting since they sum up these primates as “monkeys” in the form’s question).

Doris Kaufmann of the Canadian Blood Services, Calgary Office:

“Simian foamy virus is actually considered a retrovirus. Retroviruses that are known to affect humans do include HIV and others that we routinely test for.”

While there are no known cases of humans becoming sick from SFV, the precaution is taken in the event that the disease has a lengthy incubation period. The new question is estimated to eliminate less than 1,000 potential donors – a lower cost than testing all donated blood for the virus.

In a paper from the November issue of Genome Research, researchers from the Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics at the National Health Research Institutes are closely examining the genetic variation between humans and chimpanzees (I don’t have access to it yet – free online access is available to Genome Research articles 6 months after publication, but the article highlighting the paper is available in the China Post). Chimps don’t suffer from some of the debilitating diseases that humans can endure, so looking at our genetic differences may lead to information that might enable scientists to alter gene expression and therefore the environment in which these diseases thrive. More information on gene expression is hoped to play a role in finding cures for Alzheimer’s disease, AIDS, and hepatitis B and C.