Are chimps human?

The way some people talk about human rights for chimps these days you might think that chimpanzees were identical to humans. A Professor Sommer was quoted in an Observer article recently as claiming that ’it’s untenable to talk of dividing humans and humanoid apes because there are no clear-cut criteria—neither biological, nor mental, nor social‘.

That’s strange. We thought chimpanzees were a different species to humans. That is surely a clear-cut biological difference. And even if there is not, that does not mean chimps are identical to humans. Even on the continuous electromagnetic spectrum there is no clear-cut point at which green becomes blue. But it is still possible to make a distinction between green and blue.

The question of whether chimpanzees should have rights equivalent to humans is a political and legal issue. But it should be based on sound science, not contradictory arguments.

The animal rights groups argue for human status for chimpanzees because they are so similar to humans. But at the same time they continuously emphasise the supposed fundamental biological differences between humans and apes. The recent report from the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection (BUAV) on the use of primates in experiments states the following:

There is a perception that, because primates are our close evolutionary cousins, results from tests on them will almost invariably be predictive of human responses. This is not the case: there are highly significant differences between the species in terms of genetics, molecular biology, pharmacology, physiology, absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion and in reactions to drugs and chemicals.

Ultimately, arguing whether things are the same or different is as futile as arguing the length of a piece of string. It all depends on how closely you look and what you define as clear-cut. From the woolly thinking of the animal rights groups, it would be arguable that there is no clear-cut difference between ozone and oxygen. They are made up of exactly the same atomic matter - the only difference is a single additional oxygen atom. But I know which I would rather be breathing.

I do not think that chimps are humans. They should be given a very high level of legal protection—but not human status. Even if the only difference between chimps and humans is that chimps are hairy and swing in trees, that’s enough for me.

Comments

    Page 1 of 1 pages of comments • Follow through:
  1. The Observer article quoted said

    One of their central arguments will be that a chimpanzee’s DNA is 96 to 98.4 per cent similar to that of humans

    ... oh dear not that again, I thought it was understood that was a poor argument. The Nuffield report said:

    Some people also emphasise the large number of genes that are shared between species. For example, humans share 99 per cent of their DNA with chimpanzees and they argue that chimpanzees are therefore ‘almost human’. But knowledge about the percentage of shared DNA has limited application in helping to decide whether or not an animal experiences pain and suffering in ways similar to humans. We also share significant amounts of DNA with animals with which we are less closely related, such as mice (96 per cent) and fruit flies (70 per cent), and indeed with crops such as bananas (50 per cent). Furthermore, the same gene may be expressed in different ways, or for different periods, or interact in different ways with other genes, which means that having genes in common is information that is of limited relevance with respect to assessing welfare[/url]

    Species are different. That does not mean protection is not needed, and that some animals may need more protection. However appearance and behaviour should not be simplistically compared, remember even the elephant man said

    I am not an animal! I am a human being! I ... am ... a man!

    Posted by Haruspica / April 05, 2007 | Thursday | 02:09 PM |
  2. Under the title ‘Legal battle: my son, the chimp’, an article in the Independent on Sunday yesterday talked about the involvement of one British woman:

    A British woman has launched a court challenge to become the legal guardian of a 160lb chimpanzee in a test case that could confer basic rights on apes across Europe. Paula Stibbe, 38, a teacher who lives in Vienna, has applied to the Austrian courts to take legal responsibility for a 26-year-old male chimpanzee which, she fears, could be subjected to laboratory tests unless given legal ‘rights’.

    We learnt last week about one of the main movers behind the court challenge. The Observer said:

    Martin Balluch, of the Association against Animal Factories, who has worked to bring the case, wants him to sue the vivisection laboratory.
    Presumably the same Martin Balluch who used to be active in the Cambridge area as a hunt saboteur. Animal rights activism is one of our more successful exports.

    Posted by Zebedee / April 09, 2007 | Monday | 11:55 AM |
  3. I’m delighted to see that the silly guardianship application has been refused. More in this Nature news item.

    Posted by Zebedee / April 27, 2007 | Friday | 07:28 PM |
  4. Page 1 of 1 pages of comments • Follow through:

Only registered users can comment

Please use the login form in the left column.

<< Back to main