Frischknecht

Tyson Frischknecht Anthropology 1020 ePortfolio Signature Assignment

In the field of anthropology and in many of its subfields, there is a code of ethics by which all Anthropologists must adhere to in respect to those of whom they affiliate with, humans and primates alike. Along with this code of ethics brings to light several ethical issues that, at times fall in a grey area where it is questionable whether or not certain treatments or behavior is tolerated by the code. One issue in particular deals with the welfare of primates in captivity. The physical and psychological well-being of captive primates is a tender topic, one that is the cause of much debate or discussion. There are many people that believe it to be okay for primates to be kept in confinement so long as they are treated correctly. There are others who believe it to be wrong and inhumane to keep them locked in cages, they believe all primates should be left in their natural habitats undisturbed. On one side of the spectrum we have those who are against the keeping and captivation of primates. Jane Goodall is a great example of someone who is for the protection of primates, chimpanzees in particular. In an article produced by the Jane Goodall Institute, Jane spoke of a lab in Louisiana which she visited that takes chimpanzees from the wild when theyre young and conducts horrifying experiments on them for most if not all of the lives of these chimps. Jane spoke of one in particular named Karen, who has been locked up in a small, five by five cage for 51 years! She said of the lab; In no lab I have visited have I seen so many chimpanzees exhibit such intense fear. The screaming I heard when chimpanzees were being forced to move toward

Frischknecht

the dreaded needle in their squeeze cages was, for me, absolutely horrifying. ("Chimps in captivity:," ) Like she said, life for a chimpanzee in this lab is not glorified at all. According to the article, it says that the chimps are often subjected to many painful and distressing procedures such as numerous liver biopsies and injections of human viruses. In addition, laboratory chimpanzees are frequently kept in isolation. In the wild, chimpanzees live in diverse social groups and may travel several miles in one day. If lab chimpanzees do not die from invasive research procedures, they can live up to 50 years, most of which are spent in a cold cage that by law may be as small as 5 x 5 x 7, about the size of a small closet. Laboratory conditions cannot meet the basic biological, emotional and social needs of these complex creatures. As a result, chimpanzees used in research have been documented as suffering from depression, heightened aggression, frustration and even self-mutilation. Its pretty terrifying to think that this sort of thing existed and was legal in our country. Its even more difficult to comprehend when you take into consideration the fact that chimps are the animal that are the most similar to humans. Chimps feel pain like humans, physical and emotional pain. They can experience isolation, depression, and even hurt themselves because of depression. So what it seems to me is that the maltreatment of chimps is almost equally wrong as it is to maltreat a human being. Its like how people say animals have feelings, well as it turns out, its true. In fact, they arent much different than us at all! I believe that this argument is valid and that the facts that support it are as well. Now granted, not all primates that are in captivity live in research labs but there are many living in zoos and research facilities that do have much better living situations than those living in research labs like the one mentioned there in Louisiana. I personally believe that we will see when we discuss the other side of the argument that not all primates that live in captivity are

Frischknecht

depressed and unhealthy. However in my opinion, what was talked about in the opening argument did strike a very strong point that there are oppressed chimps out there that need to be liberated and that are not healthy physically and mentally. I believe a fallacy that we can point out about the first discussion falls under the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. It seems that the data that was collected to support this argument focused mainly (like was previously mentioned) on primates in captivity in labs that test, probe and torture chimps and not on general primates in captivity. Now to take a look at the other end of the spectrum: Is it possible for primates to be happy and healthy while in captivity? According to the articles I have collected, my personal response would be yes. But that depends on the owner or keeper of the primates and how well they stick to the code as they like to say in the Pirates of the Caribbean. In an article written by Peggy ONeill called Enriching the Lives of Primates in Captivity she said, All animals held in confinement are psychologically and physically at the mercy of their keepers and that All keepers must abide by a code of ethics which promotes a sense of healthy respect for all the animals which are on loan to them. This includes respect for the species involved as well as respect for each and every individual. (O'Neill) Therefore, if a keeper follows this code of conduct like we talked about previously, most primates will most likely be okay living in captivity. There is however a lot more that goes into following the code than we think. Not only does the caretaker have to take special care not to offend animals, but he also has to consider the social hierarchy that exists in the realm of primates. If monkeys are being housed together they need to figure out who the alpha-male, and where they each fit in socially. If cage mates are fighting, or if one is picking on another the caretaker needs to switch them around and stick them in different housing so that nature can work out the problem. Another thing is

Frischknecht

nutrition. When altering living situations for monkeys that could alter how much food they are allotted because alpha males will usually take all they want leaving left overs, if any for the other monkey(s). Its crazy all that needs to be considered, but there is a lot to do when raising primates, especially in groups. There are many more things that ought to be considered in order to maintain a balanced, physically and psychologically sound environment for primates, but these are just a few things that ought to be considered in order to follow the code and give primates a shot at any sort of normal, happy life. For me personally I feel that this is a logical discussion about the physical and psychological well-being of primates. I really like how it addresses the topic specifically and how a caregiver, zookeeper, or anthropologist could make life better for primates living in captivity. I feel that the fallacy that this argument falls under would be the black and white fallacy. Although these are both two important topics, its not as black and white as primates being happy or sad, healthy or sick, etc. depending on the actions of the caregiver. There are many more aspects that werent hit on that needed to be evaluated. Like ages that each primate is taken into captivity, whether it was at birth or at mid-age. Its all situational and all angles should be evaluated. While it is true that many animals, especially primates are treated poorly, or have sad pitiful lives, it is also true that it is important to keep and preserve them. There are many different species of primates that are extinct or are endangered, and without our protection even more would have already been whipped off of the face of the earth. I am however so grateful we have the code of ethics in place to keep our distant cousins from being abused or neglected while in the care of humans. I find it insightful that in the AAPA Code of Ethics it says, Anthropological researchers have primary ethical obligations to the people, species, and

Frischknecht

materials they study and to the people with whom they work. These obligations CAN SUPERSEDE the goal of seeking new knowledge and can lead to decisions not to undertake or to discontinue a research project when the primary obligation conflicts with other responsibilities, such as those owed to sponsors or clients. (Hagen, 2009) I think it is neat that in order to respect the code of ethics and the people or species being studied, anthropologists will abandon the research project before breaking the rule. I feel partial to the two discussions. I think that primates need to be treated well, and given freedom. We need to leave and protect as many as we can in the wild, but we also need to keep and study a few in order to understand and observe them. It is fascinating to me to go to the zoo to watch monkeys and apes go about their business. It is so cool to see how they get around in the trees by their tails, and how they associate with each other. I may not be extremely for or against either side, I guess you could say I am on the side that supports primates the most. Which in my not so professional opinion, I guess you could say both. There is good in both being against primate captivity and for it. But like I have already said, as long as they are treated well while in captivity, and that there arent too many, I feel good about it because we benefit a great deal from having them to study.

Frischknecht

Works Cited:
Hagen, E. (2009, May 27). AAPA code of ethics. Retrieved from physanth.org
O'Neill, P. (n.d.). Enriching the lives of primates in captivity. Retrieved from http://awionline.org/lab_animals/biblio/hiaa87-peg.html

Chimps in captivity: The great ape protection act fact sheet. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.janegoodall.org/chimps-GAPA-fact-sheet