Porpoises that trick their handlers by hiding pool toys.
Apes that escape captivity.
Chimps teaching each other sign language.
Feats of animal intelligence were once routinely written
off as tricks of conditioned behavior or the anecdotal displays of a few
precocious individuals that didn�t signal anything deeper.
But a groundswell of new research suggests that animals
have much higher development than previously thought.
Studies of everything from chimps and elephants to
whales and porpoises indicate they are capable of untrained thought well
beyond mere instinct and can often communicate in high levels of detail.
It�s not so much that animals are performing more
elaborate tricks; rather they're showing signs of reasoning rather than
conditioning, such as playing tricks and hiding tools.
And, just as important, scientists are more aware of
these signs. Animals are being given the opportunity to display
untraditional forms of intelligence by scientists who are ditching the
staid old maze-and-cheese testing paradigms in favor of more natural
criteria designed to ferret out the kind of problem-solving tactics
animals would develop to hunt, hide and survive.
�In the 1970s and �80s, the test was �Do they have
language capabilities?�� said Herbert Terrace, who is conducting
research on animal intelligence at Columbia University. �It�s apparent
that was just a foolish oversimplification of a very complex problem.
Now we�re looking at the extent to which animals can represent the
world, not necessarily with symbols, but being able to use memory and
abstraction to solve a problem without the guidance of stimulus.�
New testing, for example, has shown that chimps are
capable of abstracting their self-image from carnival mirrors that
grossly distort body forms, suggesting they have even more developed
sense of themselves as actors in an environment than previously thought.
Even pigeons have demonstrated limited memory in tests
where scientists delayed the time between a stimulus and a reward long
enough for the memory to emerge.
Scientists say this mounting evidence suggests
intelligence evolves through various species like any physical trait,
and that it�s not something animals either possess or lack altogether.
In short, according to some theories, there is no
definitive line between those animals with intelligence and those
without.
The social and political implications of this research
are already rapidly taking shape.
Lawyers creating the fledgling field of animal rights
law have been quietly notching victories in court, citing studies that
show animals are more aware of their own suffering than previously
thought.
One strategy has been to make it increasingly more
uncomfortable for the legal system to declare that animals lack legal
rights because they are mere property.
Can the courts, for example, justify common but arguably
cruel farming practices, such as confining veal cattle or chickens?
Cases may soon test those practices in court.
Meanwhile, state legislatures across the country have
upgraded animal cruelty from a misdemeanor to a felony.
Indeed, there are now legal conferences, books,
committees devoted to the study and development of animal law. This
summer, Harvard and Georgetown universities both turned heads when they
announced their prestigious law schools will teach animal rights law.
Scientists are feeling the pressure of the increasingly
legal and political climate surrounding animal intelligence research and
fear it�s affecting the way their results are being interpreted.
�Sometimes these studies are used to perpetuate the
wrong ideas,� said Mark Blumberg, who studies animal behavior at the
University of Iowa. �Some of this clearly the politics of the animal
rights movement.�
Animal rights advocates argue the recent trends in
animal intelligence research raise legitimate, compelling questions that
warrant serious ethical contemplation.
Reprinted with permission from the Courier Post.
Go on to Animal Rights Joke
Return to 26 September 1999 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
