Jane Goodall Remembers the Chimpanzees - - - Had a Question -

[Ghost_Tracker]

Had a question. Let me say first, I LOVE chimpanzees, I think they're very "intelligent" and they feel things just like we do and
I love watching programs about them.

I saw a very interesting program with Jane Goodall on HBO today -
she had been monitoring one chimpanzee since he was born -
she predicted that he was possibly going to become the leader of
his group. However, there was one other that was "in competition" for the top spot. One day - after nineteen years - the time for the big fight had arrived -
she captured the WHOLE thing on camera! (kudos to her for that...)
And - he got his ass handed to him. He went off alone into the woods and lay down - he was wounded. She approached him and comforted him. After a day or so she realized that his injuries were getting worse, and not better - and she nursed him back to health.

I was just wondering how people might feel about that. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for conservation, taking good care of the chimpanzees, trying to prevent human beings from harming them or putting them in cages, etc. But this was something that had happened naturally, "as a part of the way they do things." Plus, she's a scientist - and there are organizations and individuals paying her GOOD money to do this research. As a scientist, isn't her first job to remain objective? He fought, he lost, he was injured. Next page. What was happening in the tribe itself, as the new leader was "establishing his dominance," maybe making a "hierarchy," etc., as she was off tending this chimpanzee which had been naturally wounded in the natural progression of how chimpanzees "do things?"

Anyway I was just wondering what everyone's thoughts on it were.

[nailatixela]

You have a good point...I don't disagree but I think it would be impossible for her to watch the chimp die. After being with it at birth I'm sure it must have been just like a child to Jane. She loved it like it was her own child. In the end the same passion that nursed that chimp back to life, right or wrong, was the same passion that makes Jane Goodall one of the best researchers of chimpanzies in the wolrd, and the world should be thankful for the knowledge she has shared with us.

[GypsyBlueEyes]

I definitely see your point...there is a certain order to things in the wild like that. I don't necessarily think she overstepped her bounds by saving the chimp though. The battle had already been won...the was a clear winner and a clear loser. Had this same thing happened and neither of the chimps were critically injured, the chimp that lost would most likely have naturally accepted the other chimps dominance. In this case, once she had nursed the injured chimp back to health, he most likely still would have taken the role within the tribe he was meant to have. In other words, she didn't intercede in any way to affect the outcome of the fight for dominance. She only intervened in saving the injured chimp's life afterwards. Her saving him didn't interfere with the course of the tribe. Also, there might have been a specific reason for saving him that wasn't discussed...perhaps the particular kind of chimps she was monitoring were on the decline and it was an effort to preserve them as much as possible.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by GypsyBlueEyes

I definitely see your point...there is a certain order to things in the wild like that. I don't necessarily think she overstepped her bounds by saving the chimp though. The battle had already been won...the was a clear winner and a clear loser. Had this same thing happened and neither of the chimps were critically injured, the chimp that lost would most likely have naturally accepted the other chimps dominance. In this case, once she had nursed the injured chimp back to health, he most likely still would have taken the role within the tribe he was meant to have. In other words, she didn't intercede in any way to affect the outcome of the fight for dominance. She only intervened in saving the injured chimp's life afterwards. ...

I should have mentioned - She was "talking to" the chimp while she was nursing him, and according to the things she said, it was clear that she expected that when he was well - after he survived because of her intervention - there was a good chance he would go back and fight again to become the leader. This was apparently based on her experience and prior observations.

By the way, I looked over the Wikipedia article about her; some of the other Primatologists have been critical of her research; they accuse her of "being too emotionally attached to be objective" and of "anthropomorphism" (attaching "human" qualities to them without having conclusive data to justify doing that.) Apparently though, the major criticism is that she has "feeding stations" which attract the chimps to the places where she wants to do her research (perhaps so that they will be reasonably close to her camp or something like that). It's felt that these stations cause the chimps to behave more aggressively than they normally would and that therefore when she's studying them they're not actually "behaving naturally." She's responded by acknowledging that they do make them behave more aggressively; but she feels that it's not enough of a change to make a significant difference.
Anyway I just find the whole thing very interesting!

[vivfox]

Didn't she get killed by a chimp?

[GypsyBlueEyes]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

I should have mentioned - She was "talking to" the chimp while she was nursing him, and according to the things she said, it was clear that she expected that when he was well - after he survived because of her intervention - there was a good chance he would go back and fight again to become the leader. This was apparently based on her experience and prior observations.

Well, my initial reaction to this was, talking to him like he could understand her...that's just weird! We all do that with our pets though so I guess it isn't that weird.

It does seem somewhat unprofessional though. I still don't think she did anything wrong necessarily...but she definitely isn't maintaining objectivity. I guess if she were really there trying to gather accurate data, she would have no choice but to let things unfold naturally.

It is a very interesting discussion though. I saw a video a few months ago that showed gorillas at war. One gorilla was attacked by 3 or 4 other gorillas and was clearly getting hurt. There was no intervention afterwards by the people recording it that I know of. In another part of the video, a group of gorillas were trying to get to another gorilla that had climbed up a tree looking for safety. I've never seen anything like it...it was terrifying to watch. It was very violent in the most primal sense of the word. I knew that if I had been there witnessing it, there is no way I could have been objective and just let the injured gorillas die at the end...and I wasn't even emotionally invested in them. Jane, apparently, had a long standing relationship with the chimps...I can understand how she would want to save them if they were injured...regardless, it does call into question her ability to gather accurate data and the validity of her research.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by vivfox

Didn't she get killed by a chimp?

No she's still alive - - There's certainly nothing about that on Wikipedia.
I bet 'ya any amount of money she's in Tanzania right this second, and in
a matter of hours will be "in the field" again.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by GypsyBlueEyes

.....
It does seem somewhat unprofessional though. I still don't think she did anything wrong necessarily...but she definitely isn't maintaining objectivity. I guess if she were really there trying to gather accurate data, she would have no choice but to let things unfold naturally.

It is a very interesting discussion though.....
Jane, apparently, had a long standing relationship with the chimps...I can understand how she would want to save them if they were injured...regardless, it does call into question her ability to gather accurate data and the validity of her research.

I totally agree with everything you said.


P.S. - I think you've touched on an interesting point - Perhaps whether or not she did the right thing is a separate issue from whether or not that specific research should be considered to have been done "objectively."

[iamnotafraid]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

I saw a very interesting program with Jane Goodall on HBO today -
she had been monitoring one chimpanzee since he was born -
she predicted that he was possibly going to become the leader of
his group. However, there was one other that was "in competition" for the top spot. One day - after nineteen years - the time for the big fight had arrived -
she captured the WHOLE thing on camera! (kudos to her for that...)
And - he got his ass handed to him. He went off alone into the woods and lay down - he was wounded. She approached him and comforted him. After a day or so she realized that his injuries were getting worse, and not better - and she nursed him back to health.

Cool story.

I only knew about Barry's life after Stevie
met him.

[Tango]

Originally Posted by vivfox

Didn't she get killed by a chimp?

Not sure, but maybe you are writing about Dian Fossey, who was killed while doing work with gorillas? (although she was actually killed by a poacher. Gorillas In The Mist was about her.)

[vivfox]

Originally Posted by Tango

Not sure, but maybe you are writing about Dian Fossey, who was killed while doing work with gorillas? (although she was actually killed by a poacher. Gorillas In The Mist was about her.)

This must be the person I was thinking of. Didn't Sigourney Weaver portray her in a movie?

[GypsyBlueEyes]

Originally Posted by vivfox

This must be the person I was thinking of. Didn't Sigourney Weaver portray her in a movie?

It was Sigourney that portrayed Dian & Tango is right...it was a poacher that murdered her in the middle of the night. Apparently it was very gruesome. It was such a good movie though