Section of Behavioural Neuroscience, Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy.
Am J Primatol. 2011 Mar;73(3):211-3. doi: 10.1002/ajp.20906. Epub 2010 Nov 23.
This commentary introduces this special section on ‘‘the Effects of Bonds Between Human and Nonhuman Primates on Primatological Research and Practice.’’ The aim is to explore the different causes and consequences of bonding experiences between observers and observed in different primatological contexts. In the first contribution, Vitale asks what are the possible consequences of such bonding in behavioral primatology. Examples of beneficial consequences of this kind of relationship come fromstudies on cognitive abilities of great apes. Furthermore, an empathic attitude with the experimental animals leads to better care and attention toward individual welfare needs. Coleman discusses the particular case of nonhuman primates housed in research laboratories. Care-giving practices arediscussed in relation to scientific, ethical and emotional issues. Morimura et al. present the case of the first Japanese sanctuary for retiring chimpanzees from research where, in order to facilitate the social living of re-located chimpanzees, face-to-face interactions between caregivers and chimpanzees areessential. Asquith discusses the role of an thropomorphism, and proposes that this attitude can help to better understand the lives of primates, in more contextualized scenarios. In relation to this view, sheemphasizes how the term ‘‘primate culture’’ accords with some definition of the term ‘‘human culture.’’Fuentes, in his article asks whether national, class and ethnic characteristics can influence bonding between human and nonhuman primates, and calls for focused quantitative studies. Finally, Rose calls for the application of the concept of biosynergy, explained as promoting the formation of healthy and sustainable bonding relationships among living creatures. One of the most important aspects emerging from these papers is the need to better understand whether the issue of bonding in primatological studiescan be generalized to other areas of research such as conservation, behavior, captive care, or whether each of these disciplines needs to develop their own understanding of the effects of bonding in ‘‘producing science.’’
本评论介绍了这个关于“人类与灵长类动物之间的关系对灵长类动物学研究和实践的影响”的特别版块。目的是探讨不同灵长类学背景下观察者与被观察者之间的结合体验的不同原因和后果。在第一篇文章中，Vitale 探讨了这种结合在行为灵长类学中可能产生的后果。这种关系带来的有益后果的例子来自对大型类人猿认知能力的研究。此外，对实验动物的同理心会导致对个体福利需求的更好照顾和关注。Coleman 讨论了在研究实验室中饲养的非人类灵长类动物的特殊情况。讨论了与科学、伦理和情感问题相关的护理实践。Morimura 等人介绍了日本第一个退休研究用黑猩猩保护区的案例，为了促进重新安置的黑猩猩的社交生活，照顾者和黑猩猩之间的面对面互动是必不可少的。Asquith 讨论了拟人化的作用，并提出这种态度可以帮助更好地理解更具背景化场景下的灵长类动物的生活。在这种观点下，她强调了“灵长类文化”一词如何符合“人类文化”一词的某些定义。Fuentes 在他的文章中问道，国家、阶级和种族特征是否会影响人类与非人类灵长类动物之间的关系，并呼吁进行有针对性的定量研究。最后，Rose 呼吁应用生物协同作用的概念，即促进生物之间健康和可持续关系的形成。这些文章中最重要的一个方面是需要更好地理解灵长类学研究中的结合问题是否可以推广到其他研究领域，如保护、行为、圈养护理，或者这些学科中的每一个是否需要发展自己对结合在“产生科学”中的影响的理解。
