Would you let a man with the moniker Evil Monkey pick your brain? Apparently, he's learning how to do it!
And perhaps he'll figure out your animals next.
No, not literally! We're talking studying animal intelligence here!
This Neuroscience buff has a Ph.D. from a US university and has expertise in primate neuroanatomy, immunohistochemistry, rodent and monkey behavioral testing, small animal surgery, and stereological analyses. He also did graduate work focusing on modeling menopause in monkeys, specifically the effects of ovarian hormone loss and estrogen replacement on neuroanatomy and cognition.
He's also the founder of Neurotopia, a blog about all things behavior, neuroscience, and strong opinions.
He currently works in a lab and as an adjunct assistant professor in a state university.
He's not afraid to call his cat dumb or compliment the smarts of the animals he studies.
And that's why we couldn't wait to interview him. Read Evil Monkey's educated thoughts below:
What is your background in neuroscience and how much of that (if at all) has to do with animal studies?
I began my neuroscience career as an undergraduate, volunteering for and later working in a lab that researched Alzheimer's Disease shortly after my grandfather was diagnosed with probable AD. Both of my mom's parents would eventually die of complications associated with AD. My graduate schooling focused more upon cognition and menopause, a subset of the aging process that is highly relevant to women and AD since early studies suggested that hormone therapy could prevent AD. After graduate school I began working in a lab that studied normal aging processes and attempted to model AD in mice.
Your research once focused on animal models of Alzheimer’s Disease. Tell me about that experience.
Modeling diseases can be tough because not many animals out there develop a full-blown version of the disease in question, even though they may display many similarities to human patients. Even our closer primate relatives like rhesus monkeys will develop AD-like pathology but on a lesser scale. Since primate research carries a lot of ethical issues and is quite costly and time-consuming (monkeys aren't cheap to house, and they can live over 30 years), people commonly try to use mice to model facets of AD. Mice, unfortunately, don't get the disease. By taking human genes related to AD and incorporating them into the mouse genome, you can raise mice that will show pathology similar to that found in human patients.
The problem is you're not modeling AD, you're modeling a component of AD. In our case we were modeling amyloid deposition. Amyloid is a protein that clumps up at high levels in the AD brain, but it isn't the only pathological change. Heck, we don't even know for sure if it has a causal role and some recent studies suggest that amyloid may not be where we should focus most of our time. The information we gain from this sort of mouse model is still extremely useful since there are many diseases of aging that have abnormally clumping proteins as a common feature (e.g. vascular dementia, Pick's Disease, Huntington's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, etc), and some of them even have the same proteins, albeit expressed in different ways. It allows us to target drugs and interventions and learn what works, and what doesn't.
Are animals smarter then humans tend to believe?
I guess that depends on what you mean by "smart". Defining intelligence is by-and-large a human past time. Dog owners argue that dogs are smarter because you can teach them so many tricks. Cat owners argue that cats are smarter because they refuse to learn so many stupid tricks. The reality is that each animal evolved to exploit a niche in its environment, and is well-suited to that niche. Going by sheer numbers the most successful organisms on the planet (bacteria) don't even have nervous systems. Heck, your own body contains more bacterial cells than human cells!
What has research (including your own) uncovered about animal behavior and animal intelligence?
If anything, we've learned that you can't equate behavioral performance with intelligence. A "dumb" animal like a pigeon that learns to peck at a button to get food rewards will immediately remember to peck the button even if it hasn't seen the button in years; animals (e.g. mammals, like rats) that we think of as "smarter" don't do that! However, if you stop rewarding the animal for pressing the button, a rat will give up and go do something else whereas a pigeon will keep pecking the damn button incessantly. Which animal is smarter? Coaxing a monkey to press a button to get a peanut can take weeks, where a pigeon might pick it up in days. Is the pigeon smarter? No, the monkey is just that much more stubborn. They like to do things on their terms. Pigeons, on the other hand, are content to scavenge.
"Intelligence" biases us unfairly against animals that are most different from ourselves. We tend to think of birds, for example, as being dumb. Yet some birds use objects as tools just like some primates, some birds pass on skills to their offspring by example just like some primates, and some birds have highly ordered social hierarchies just like some primates. Birds can do those things even without having hands. Does that mean birds are smarter or dumber than primates?
You have expertise in rodent and monkey behavioral testing and small animal surgery, yet you own a cat. What would you say to someone who saw a descrepency in this?
When it comes to research, the number of animals killed in the name of science, medicine, and generally improving our lives pales compared to the number used as food. Keep in mind that researchers are required to treat animal subjects much better than a CAFO treats its pigs. Plus, the vast majority of animals killed for research purposes are considered "vermin" by just about any municipality you can name; I expect that the city of Chicago exterminates more dogs, cats, rats, and pigeons annually than are used in all Chicago-area research institutions, although I don't have any formal numbers to back that up. Even monkeys are considered vermin in their countries of origin; India, for example, has a real problem with packs of rhesus monkeys robbing street vendors, rampaging through restaurants, and even ganging up on people occasionally!
I own a cat for a number of reasons; companionship being a primary one. I also have a sense of social responsibility that owning a pet can help fill; I adopted Isabel from a shelter. She's one less cat doomed to FLV, giving birth to many more stray kittens, getting rabies, starving on the street, or getting hit by a car. Let's face it; we have many more animals than we can reasonably support in our society. Responsible pet ownership and adoption takes the burden off our resources and gives people a sense of duty. It cultivates empathy.
Likewise, animal research is empathetic. Extremists paint us as sickos who revel in torture and death. The truth is, you simply can't be in this business without having a profound sense of empathy for the well-being of humans and animals. (Animal research benefits other animals as well, something that is often overlooked.) It is unfortunate, yes, that animals are used, but they are used responsibly, humanely, and with the understanding that our lives are made better. We've all cried because at some point we've had to put down an animal that was very near and dear to our hearts. Researchers are no different.
Why do you have such a strong opinion on animal rights extremists?
Don't extremists by definition require a strong opinion? I have yet to meet anybody who is ambivalent on the subject of the Taliban, for instance. Animal rights extremists who use tactics of fear and violence are terrorists, full stop. Even the FBI sees them that way. They literally use every trick in the book from beatings to incendiary devices and poisons to advance their agenda, often with little regard for collateral damage.
The bottom line is human beings are animals who are capable of suffering. Why activists disregard human pain in favor of mouse pain baffles me. We're talking blatant hypocrisy here. Extremists justify sending my colleagues pipe bombs, or arsenic-tinted razor blades, or setting fire to their houses and cars by pointing to our capacity for empathy; we're the more intelligent, more aware species, right? We should know better. So why don't they know better? If humans are more intelligent and aware, then it stands to reason that our suffering is more palpable. Yet humans are still targeted with full knowledge that a child may witness a parent's death, a spouse may killed, or an innocent coworker permanently disabled. Our awareness guarantees that we carry that suffering for a long, long time. The argument is self-defeating; by selectively targeting humans, animal rights extremists become speciesist; otherwise, you'd see "cat firebombed for taking down bird" as the top news story every now and then. You partner on your blog wrote a long review about the book, “An Odyssey with Animals: A Veterinarian’s Reflections on the Animal Rights and Welfare Debate.” Have you read it? Sum up what you thought of it. If not, what has he said about it’s necessity for an animal loving public?
I haven't read the book so I don't feel comfortable commenting on it. I will say that in the distinction between animal rights and animal welfare, I support animal welfare wholeheartedly. It just makes good scientific and ethical sense that the animals we use be treated with the utmost respect and consideration.
Why do you keep such close track of animal rights extremists in universities like UCLA and choose to spend so much time blogging about it?
Because people need to be aware of the benefits that responsible animal research has brought us and our animals, and need to understand that there are extremists out there who destroy buildings and lives.
Tell me about your cat
Despite everything I've said about animal intelligence so far, I'm going to be a hypocrite and just state that my cat is DUMB. She once got in the trash and ate a dryer sheet. She almost had to benefit from animal research in the form of a stomach surgery that was refined on animals, but thankfully the syrup of ipecac worked. The end result, however, was disgusting.
She routinely falls and doesn't land on her feet, she gets her head stuck under furniture a lot, and is generally not very coordinated. She only recently learned how to chew her food since I started buying a much larger kibble. This is all probably due to having a bit of Maine Coon in her background someplace; apparently they're not very aware of their bodies and shovel down their food without chewing. On the other hand, she's extremely sweet and doesn't have a mean bone in her body. Unless you're my girlfriend's dog and trying to stick your nose in her butt all the time. She's 11 and sleeps a lot, so her favorite past time is trying to coax somebody into napping with her on the bed. She'll knead the covers and drool all over you when she does.
Tell me about your blog, Neurotopia and why you chose to do it as a partnership?
Neurotopia was conceived on Blogger as a science and evolution-oriented blog. It has since evolved into, well, something. Originally I was the sole blogger but I decided to add a couple colleagues who were looking for new homes. Now they run the show, for the most part, and are the life blood of the blog.
What is your Neuroscience studies taking you in the future?
I'm really not sure. A lot of things are up in the air right now. I'd like to get a full-time teaching position but I'm considering other options. I guess time will tell.
Would you let a man with the moniker Evil Monkey pick your brain? Apparently, he's learning how to do it!
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed