Category: Zoology

Hal Herzog, Animal Ethics & the Alien Problem

Book Review, Good Writing, Grad School, Public Perceptions, Zoology,

Last semester I read many more books (thus I did a lot more book reviews) than this semester which has mostly been devoted to academic research papers. But I do have two books that need reading for my zoology class on human and animal behavior with Patricia McConnell.

Some-We-Love-Some-We-Hate-Some-We-Eat-Herzog-Hal-9780061730863I finally finished the first of the two assigned books, Hal Herzog’s Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat – Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals. I’ve been reading Herzog’s book all semester, so my evaluation of it draws on a slightly disjointed memory but I think I can summarize his main point with two statements:

1. Most people choose not to (or don’t know enough to) think about their personal moral philosophy. Not thinking about how we feel about animals is what allows us to love puppies so much while we happily chow down on a Big Mac.
2. Those people who have spent a tremendous amount of time trying to discern their personal moral philosophy about animals either A. remain horribly conflicted or B. Choose a philosophy with regards to the treatment of animals that societal pressures make very difficult to implement (for example, all creatures are equal – if you save an iguana from a burning building instead of a human baby, society is not going to look kindly upon you regardless of your belief that the iguana and the baby are equals)

Herzog’s answer to his main question “why is it so hard to think straight about animals?” largely comes down to because you’re damned if you do and you’re damned if you don’t.

The book tries hard to cover a variety of topics that impact the way we feel about animals, some obvious (factory farming, animals in research, hunting) and some less so (cockfights, dog shows, gender roles.) I don’t intend to go into his arguments for and against certain behaviors, but to give an example of the kind of analysis he provides I will share the anecdote from his chapter “The moral status of mice,” on the use of animals for biological research.

Herzog frames animal research this way: Think of Steven Spielberg’s 1982 classic film ET. Remember how close Elliott and ET became, and how heart wrenching it was to see ET go back to his home planet? Well, what if there was a disease destroying the alien’s on ET’s home planet, and the reason he really came to earth was to scout out organisms of lesser intelligence to test possible remedies on. Elliott’s intelligence was far less than ET’s. So how would you feel if at the end of the movie, ET kidnapped Elliott and took him back to his home planet to live the rest of his life as the subject of research. It would save millions of aliens. But ET still essentially destroys Elliott’s life. Not really a satisfactory ending, I’d say.

So if we don’t want ET to kidnap Elliot just because he is of lesser intelligence, then what do we do when humans are like ET and mice are like Elliot? Should we experiment on mice just because they are of lesser intelligence? Previous logic would lead us to say no, we should not experiment on the mice. But yet, I’m still in favor of animal research. Philosophically, I shouldn’t be. But there is something about experimenting on a member of my own species that I find morally reprehensible. It is the reason we don’t conduct experiments on people in coma’s or with mental retardation. But if you are always putting humans first, how can you still treat animals with respect and moral standing?

I’m not here to answer the questions thinking critically about animals pose. Herzog has 280 pages of highly intelligent, moving, and entertaining explanation, and he still doesn’t answer most of them. But he will get you thinking about your own behavior, why some animals matter to us more than others, and why humans think the way we do.

It is important for everyone: meat eaters, vegetarians, pet lovers, people who avoid animals, etc. to think about why they feel the way they do about animals. I was surprised by the conflicts in my own way of thinking, and sadly I now fall into column A – thinking critically, but still horribly confused. At least I’m thinking right?

Science For Six-Year-Olds: Animals & Tool Use

My Personal Life, Science For Six Year Olds, Zoology

This is a special Science Decoded post for Mrs. Podolak’s first graders at Lincoln-Hubbard Elementary School (yes that would be my Mom’s class). My viewers in Lincoln-Hubbard’s first grade liked my post Animal Cognition & The Genius Parrot about Dr. Irene Pepperberg and her experiments with Alex the african grey parrot, so I decided to do a post just for them to give them some more information about animal cognition (thinking) by sharing some videos about tool use in animals.

Animal cognition is a fascinating subject because we don’t even know everything about how our human brains work, yet we have been able to observe other species demonstrating the ability to think. The following videos show some interesting examples of animals showing us that they do think about their surroundings by using tools to achieve their goals.
***
Chimpanzees – termites are a source of food for chimpanzees, but they can be extremely difficult to catch because the mounds they build to live in are thick and hard for a chimp to break into. So, chimps have developed a way to infiltrate (sneak into) the mounds. They even modify (change) simple tools (a regular stick) by making them into brushes which capture even more termites.

New Caledonian Crows – birds like to eat nuts, but getting through the hard shell to the tasty part can be very difficult. These crows have devised a special way of cracking the nut, and even found a way to safely collect the edible part of the nut once it has been smashed. (Because this is a BBC video it needs to be watched on YouTube but clicking below will take you to the right link).

Octopus – Researchers have found an example of tool use by the octopus. The organism takes coconut shells and gathers them to use as a shelter which is a startling and significant use of an object external to the animal’s self to achieve a goal among invertebrates (animals that don’t have a spine, the bones in their back.)

There are many other examples of animals using tools, which shows that the ability to manipulate an object and use it to accomplish a task is by no means a uniquely human trait. If there are any questions, leave them for me in the comment section and I’ll be sure to answer them!

Animal Cognition & The Genius Parrot

Grad School, Zoology
In my previous post Osteoarthritis, Cognition and Animal Healthcare I raised some questions about animal cognition – basically how can we understand what animals know and how they think? In my zoology class we are studying animal cognition, and we watched a really interesting video of Alex the African Grey Parrot, who is famous for the cognitive abilities he demonstrated when asked complex questions. 
Alex died in 2007 (check out his obituary in the New York Times,) but prior to his death he was the subject of very interesting work by Dr. Irene Pepperberg at Brandeis University (she is also an associate researcher at Harvard University) and the subject of her book Alex and Me. Even though it isn’t new research, I wanted to share the video of Alex going through some of the cognition tests, because I hadn’t seen it before, and I was pretty impressed by just how much he knew. 

Since Alex’s death researchers in Pepperberg’s laboratory are working with other parrots. Although, cognitive abilities as extensive as Alex’s haven’t been reported. Alex shows us what parrots are capable of, but I can’t help but wonder if he showed the highest boundary of what parrots can learn and most parrots are not as smart, or if it really is just a matter of training parrots to communicate with us. 

Osteoarthritis, Cognition and Animal Healthcare

Grad School, Public Perceptions, Zoology

As I’ve talked about in previous posts, I’m taking a zoology class this semester on the biology and psychology of human and animal relationships with Patricia McConnell. I’m really enjoying the class so far because it has me thinking more critically about the way humans think about and treat other animals.

Case in point, I read the article Polar Bear Mercedes’ Health Failing mostly because it is about a polar bear (as I’ve proclaimed before, they are my absolute favorite animals and have been since I was a child). I was having a gushy “oh poor polar bear” sort of moment. BUT reading the article made me think a lot about veterinary science and the way that humans take care of the health problems of other animals.

The article is about a specific polar bear in the Highland Wildlife Park in the United Kingdom that has been diagnosed with osteoarthritis. Currently the bear is being treated with painkillers for the condition, which is a degenerative disorder of the joints. Joints are places in the body where bones meet. They are held together with cartilage, tendons and muscles that enable the joint to bend. When an individual has osteoarthritis the cartilage starts to break down, causing the bones to rub directly together. This can cause pain, swelling and stiffness that drastically limits movement as the disease progresses.

At the Bronx Zoo.
Source: Wikipedia Commons

There is no known cure for osteoarthritis (which it should be noted affects many different species, and is very common in humans) but the symptoms can be controlled with painkillers. The condition typically effects older individuals. In the case of the polar bear, the patient is 30 years old which makes her a very old lady as far as polar bears go. Because there is no cure for the condition it is possible that the polar bear will be put down when her condition progresses enough to reduce her quality of life.

I can’t help but wonder how we define quality of life for a polar bear. Even though she is suffering from a condition that also effects humans, we can’t necessarily define the polar bear’s suffering or quality of life the way we would our own. How do veterinarians or zoologists decide when enough is enough for a polar bear? She can’t tell us when she’s tired of living with the disease. Quite frankly assisted suicide isn’t legal in humans, so what is it that makes euthanasia in animals alright? I support trying to limit the pain and suffering of animals that have been brought under human care, but what needs to be considered before deciding that it is time for them to die?

In humans a joint that no longer functions due to damage from osteoarthritis could be replaced with an artificial one made of plastic, metal or cement. That type of invasive surgery wouldn’t be done on other species. Not only are these procedures extremely expensive, they require strenuous physical therapy and rehabilitation to come back from. This is a case where the condition might be the same across species, but the way it is treated is different. Really all they could do to alleviate the bear’s symptoms is treat it with painkillers (which is what they are doing.)

A human joint with osteoarthritis.
Source: NIH-NIAMS photo gallery

It is interesting to consider how the polar bear would deal with the disease in the wild. They certainly wouldn’t have pain killers at their disposal. In this case the polar bear wouldn’t even have made it to old age (and have developed this disease) if it weren’t for human interference. It was rescued after being shot in the wild and brought to a zoo, and later moved to the wildlife park.

These aren’t easy questions. Animal behaviorists are still searching for answers about how much other species are self-aware. The fact is we don’t know how much the polar bear thinks, or what it thinks – about its life or its condition. Even though I don’t have answers, I appreciate my zoology class for getting me to think like this about how humans manage other animal’s health.

If you are interested in animal cognition there is an entire journal dedicated to scientific research being done in the field called (shockingly) Animal Cognition where you can learn more about studies of what and how animals think.

Sheep

Grad School, Zoology

To shake things up, today I don’t have a journalism trend or scientific discovery to talk about. Instead, I want to discuss sheep, more specifically sheep herding.

I mentioned a while back that I’m taking a zoology class this semester with Patricia McConnell about human and animal behavior. Today our class was held in the stock pavilion (yes, I attend a University that has its own stock pavilion) and Prof. McConnell brought in her own sheep from her farm for a demonstration of how her herding dog Willie gets the sheep to do what he wants them to through body movements, and also how she controls Willie.

Not my professors sheep (my pics didn’t come out so well)
There sheep are from Wikimedia Commons.

To prepare for class we had done some readings about how animals respond to sounds. In the demonstration we were shown that short, staccato sounds are best for motivating an animal to move and low long sounds are best for getting it to slow down or stop. I find it really interesting that this is a universal trend among animals. Its also interesting that the sounds to get the dog to go clockwise or counterclockwise (moving the sheep right or left) vary by the animal’s handler, but also tend to be short yet distinguishable sounds.

It was fun to demonstrate the principles we are learning in class in real-life settings and not just through reading academic papers. Plus, I got to see sheep and for a Jersey Girl that still has a lot of novelty.