J412 Communicating Nature
Case Study
7 December 2010 The Great Ape Project aims to give apes the same basic rights to life that humans have. Paola Cavalieri and Peter Singer published a book in 1993 titled, “The Great Ape Project.” The novel is composed of different essays written by advocates of the projects who aim to discuss the ethology and ethics issues between human beings and apes. Cavalieri and Singer argue that we now have “sufficient information about the capacities of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans to make it clear that the moral boundary we draw between us and them is indefensible.” The novel became instantly popular and eventually led to the creation of the self-titled Great Ape Project. The Great Ape Project was founded in 1994 and put into action six years later in Sorobaca City. The Great Ape Project is an international movement that “aims to defend the rights of the non-human great primates-chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and bonobos, our closest relatives in the animal kingdom.” According to the project, the three main rights his project wants to ensure for apes include, the right to life, the protection of individual liberty, and the prohibition of torture. The Great Ape Project argues that apes deserve the right to live a higher standard of life. Studies have proven that chimpanzee’s are the closest relatives of human beings. Chimpanzees share 98.4% of the same DNA that human’s have. DNA tests also say that gorilla’s share 97.7% of the same DNA that humans have. The Great Ape Project wants to bridge the gap between human beings along with chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans in order to provide equality in our society. The Great Ape Project has distinguished three different subjects of criteria that they have presented to the community for equality. The first, the right to life, states that both human beings and great apes should be granted a life that is protected. Human beings and great apes should not be killed unless it is in self-defense. The protection of individual liberty is the second basic right. This right states that, “members of the community of equals are not to be arbitrarily deprived of their liberty; if they should be imprisoned without due legal process, they have the right to immediate release” (Cavalieri & Singer 4). Finally, the third basic right to life states that human beings or great apes should never be subject to pain or torture. Many apes today are exposed to laboratories, circuses, entertainment shows, and zoos. The Great Ape Project considers these actions to be equal to slavery and directly violates the protection of individual liberty for great apes law. Apes naturally reside in African and Asian forests. However, 3,100 apes are held in captivity in the United States. 1,280 of those apes are held in captivity for biomedical research. The project also monitors apes who are located in the United States. Statistics show a concerning decrease of apes in their habitat causing negative impacts “on the environmental balance of the ecosystems.” The Great Ape Project argues that apes are just like humans. It is scientifically proven that apes and humans share the same tendencies of emotion, knowledge, and thought. The project demands that apes gain the same respect humans obtain. There are many people who think that apes do not deserve the same basic rights that humans have. Many scientists argue that apes are very valuable for biomedical research and testing purposes since they are the closest relatives of human beings. Primates are extremely valuable to scientific advances with human diseases. Other valuable information from science experiments on great apes includes ageing, reproduction, endocrine function, metabolism, and neurology. If apes are given the same rights that humans have, scientists worry that they will no longer be able to conduct experimentations on these primates. These advocates question whether or not primates should automatically receive the same basic rights to life just because they are similar to us. The Chimpanzee Cognition Center at The Ohio State University argues that when humans hold great apes captive, their cognitive abilities are enhanced. The scientists compared chimpanzees that are held captive versus chimpanzees that live in their natural habitat. Dr. Sarah Boysen led the study and concluded that the, “findings mean that the conditions under which chimpanzees are raised, housed, and maintained have long-term effects on their cognitive development, and offer direct comparisons with early experience, issues of attachment, and preschool education for human infants and children.” The scientists argue that chimpanzees have higher learning abilities when they are not living in their natural environment. When it comes to the Great Ape Project and equal rights, the topic is an ethics issue. When discussing ethics, it often times helps to take a step back and look at the big picture. Professor of philosophy at Liverpool University, Stephen R.L. Clark, has published many different novels that pose the question of where we as human beings should draw the line of our own species. Clark argues that, “what we do to others of our kind we do to ourselves, because we are all one, variegated kind. It is not that we are all or most of us alike. Our pleasure in each other is that we are different, and yet the same” (Cavalieri & Singer 121). One cannot refute the obvious and scientifically proven similarities between great apes and human beings. For our interview portion of this assignment, we had the great opportunity of interviewing Debra Durham and thus have acquired some fantastic information based on her response. Deb is a senior research scientist (an ethnologist specifically) and has written and presented on the topics of chimpanzee biology and protection and even their legal rights for a few years now; as well as animal advocacy by and large. She has worked as an advocate professionally for six years. For our interview we were really interested in asking Deb about her concerns, interests, her experiences and above all her thoughts on the success of the great ape project and her projections about the counter arguments concerning great apes inclusion into the community of equals. As a team we came up with a series of questions that we emailed to Deb on November 29 so that she had plenty of time to give us some fabulous feedback! Some of the biggest questions we asked Deb include the following:

1. We understand this project to be one that is cancelling the notion of ‘us’ as opposed to the ‘other’ and combing the two so there is no ‘other’ among ‘us’ and our closest relatives; they are us. Do you agree with this demand? Do you believe – no matter the time it’s going to take – that this demand will be rewarded eventually? 2. We outlined two of the main arguments against this project and asked her these series of questions: What is your analysis on these two opposing arguments? Do you think that these arguments have too strong a hold on the ability for this project to obtain success? Do you agree with the arguments? What is your response on the argument by Peter and Paolo concerning the argument that there are human beings who still need to fulfill their quest for decent subsistence before the ‘others’ right to life can be focused on? Are experiments on chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans irreplaceable? 3. What is your hope for The Great Ape Project in the future? Do you think the project will make progress in years to come? What is the key to success for this project in the future? 4. What is the most gratifying part of your involvement with The Great Ape Project? Do you feel like you have made a positive impact on the lives of apes? What can people in society do individually to improve the lives of apes?

So as we have talked about extensively in our paper so far, The Great Ape Project is demanding the extension of the ‘community of equals’ to include all great apes: human beings, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans; for reasons that they are our closest relatives, sharing nearly 98% of our genes, with mental capacities and an emotional life sufficient enough for the justification of their inclusion in the community of equals. The individuals standing behind this project are asking that we (human beings) defend the rights and interests of chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans in the same way that we protect the rights of children or intellectually disabled members. In speaking with Deb about this, we understand that other great apes as well deserve the legal protections outlined by the project, not just the ones that we have listed. Rather than saying that this is because great apes are “like us” or “they are us,” to Deb’s way of thinking the protections that the Great Ape Project wants to grant them “ought to be based on the fact that certain traits that have been deemed ethically and legally important are intrinsic to the species in question.” We came across a statement in the book, The Great Ape Project by Peter Singer and Paolo Cavaleiri, stating that it seems that the primary danger in the proliferation of this project is not necessarily from a biological standpoint (the fact that they share nearly 98% of our genes), but more from our own habitual confusion of species and their natural kind. So we ask is the main menace concerning this project really just from our own habitual confusion. We don’t know that it is just simply our confusion, but it is rather that our knowledge about this issue has evolved and that our laws and practices no longer fit with what we know about the other great apes. Deb explained to us that science has played a huge part in this, on top of the evolution of the rights and protections of women and children and other groups of people. Deb went onto to explain to us as well in response to this that, “a principle-based approach to legal protections – especially ones that give attention to vulnerability – lead to different views about how much protection is afforded to whom for what reasons.” Concluding this area of discussion with Deb and what we have learned from her, The Great Ape Project is a very complicated project with numerous ins and outs. The reason that great apes are not being granted the same right to life that humans have right now is because of “inertia and competing interests. Like all social movements in our world, the success of this project will be a process that evolves and takes time.” Deb believes though that great ape rights will be achieved in her lifetime, as do we. For the future, this project will certainly make progress and the legal strategies will evolve along the way. We, along with Deb, believe however that basic legal rights for great apes will be achieved in our lifetimes. We want to talk now about the competing interests in this project. For this, we will most definitely have to cite some of Deb’s response because it is fantastic and it is too strong a response to not let you in on this. In any state of affairs like this, there is however going to be opposing arguments against it. All over the world human beings are living without the basic rights or even the means for a decent survival. Thus, the argument is how can we work so hard to raise levels of awareness concerning the abuse of animals, devote enough time and energy to do this as well as redirect public resources to stopping the abuse of animals, when there is so much need among human beings and their quest for decent subsistence in our society today? That’s a big argument against the project and it is so very true. We all, including chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans, deserve the right to life. But is it a situation where we have to ensure our own species needs before we can focus on the ‘other’ in this case. What the authors of The Great Ape Project, Peter Singer and Paolo Cavalieri, say in opposition to this argument though is, “we should not delude ourselves into believing that, so as long as there is human suffering it is morally acceptable to turn a blind eye to non-human suffering. Who are we to say that the suffering of humans is more terrible than the suffering of non-humans or that it matters?” The second and by and large the biggest argument in this project is the fact that that great apes, especially chimpanzees, are extremely valuable laboratory tools because they both physically and psychologically so closely resemble our own species. We can’t use humans to grant us answers about ourselves because that would be tremendously unethical and for the reason that great apes are not seen in the same light as our own species – they are denied any ethical and legal protection that human beings are given – so we must use them in the laboratories. Our response to this, in addition to Deb’s, is that we all reject these arguments and think that these two opposing issues are less important than other legal issues in our progress toward ape protection and rights. Because Deb has written and presented on this topic for quite some time now, in support of our above statements she provided us with the text of an op-ed and a fact sheet that she wrote in 2008 in response to Spain’s resolution on Great Apes. We want to share this piece with you because it so strongly helps to best maintain and support our argument! “In classrooms, cafes, comedy shows and newspaper columns the world over people are asking questions about pending legislation now before the Spanish parliament. This isn’t a law about carbon emissions or global trade, but rather one that would give some rights to great apes. It’s certainly not the case that chimpanzees will be queuing up for state health care while orangutans enroll in public school and gorillas and bonobos sign up for pensions. Though some critics have responded with retorts or quips about voting and driving these sentiments are off the mark. Perhaps comedy and sarcasm provide relief from the moral ambiguities that lie just beneath the surface, or maybe this is just another instance where resistance is to change itself. While far from the protections recommended by the UN High Commission on Human Rights, the law under consideration would prohibit torturing and killing great apes in Spain. As a society, prohibitions against torture and killing would seem to be an easy sell, even for apes. With conservation reports and documentaries about fragmented habitats, disappearing forest and dwindling populations publicized regularly, it would make sense for us to feel more magnanimous and protective of great apes now than ever before. So why the apparent fear and indignant commentary? Are there concerns that other great apes don’t deserve that much from us? That we don’t have the care to give? Is it because they don’t need protection? In each case the answer has to be no. Public awareness about the plight of great apes in the wild is limited by their frivolous use as props and performers in entertainment. A study published in the journal Science this year found that many people did not know that chimpanzees were endangered. When asked why, the most common reason was their common use in mass media. As our closest living primate relatives, as unique, bright and sensitive beings in their own right, as a part of ecosystems and diverse, natural communities we want apes to survive and to remain a part of our world. Great apes facing these challenges deserve our best conservation efforts and any legal protections that we can offer them. For many of the same reasons, those great apes who, by no fault of their own, happen to be living in captivity also deserve protection.
There is no doubt that chimpanzees who are held in captivity suffer. Some live in desperate isolation, others languish in barren cages to be mocked, laughed at and threatened by gawkers. Some have been beaten and abused so that they will obey trainers who force them to do tricks for an advert or film. Still others, minds and spirits broken by decades of captivity, sit in the corner of a room or at the end of a chain lost in their own psychological hell. There are few people who lobby in favor of torturing and killing. If those who do aren’t labeled tyrants and despots or named in articles of impeachment, their popularity ratings definitely go into the toilet. Given that effectively no one wants to mainstream these evils, why oppose their prohibition? That is hard to understand. The varied objections that have been offered publicly suggest that if society supports this law that would ban torture and killing, then it also diminishes other globally important causes. Yet this makes little sense on its face: how does an act of compassion make us less caring or less able to care? It does not. Neither do ethical objections to torture or compassionate politics disparage our humanity. Rather, our willingness to rebuke violence and extend protection says something positive about our nature.
Compassion is not a zero sum game. As a society we are never in the ethical position where we have to say that we care about orphaned children or care about those displaced by war. We can care about both. We can have compassion for the sick and the hungry, for the frightened and the grieving whether given to a fellow human or to another great ape. Our hearts are just that big and our minds just that agile. The courage to say that torturing a great ape is not only morally reprehensible but also illegal sends the message loud and clear that torture in all of its guises is simply wrong and that abuse and suffering are intolerable. These are sentiments that society embraces. Thus, once we get beyond the novelty of this proposal to protect great apes and look at the values it represents – that liberty is precious, that torture and killing are evil, that we can try to right a historical wrong and that, even when our efforts are imperfect, we can endeavor to ease the pain and suffering of others– it is far less scary and uncomfortable. What is perhaps more uncomfortable, then is to think that some would ask us to wait a moment longer to listen to our hearts” (Debra Durham).

In regards to laboratory research and great apes being valuable laboratory tools, we have learned that actually chimpanzees have not proven to be good models for human disease research and that research on them has been banned everywhere else in the world. Most of these bans and restrictions have been based on ethical arguments regarding the mental and emotional lives of chimpanzees rather the specific productivity of past research models. It’s like we have been saying; just as we would not experiment on people and we would not experiment on people without their consent or on vulnerable human beings simply because we might not be able to or it is unethical, it is unethical to experiment on fellow great apes who share nearly 98% of our DNA. Look an orangutan straight in the eye and what do you see? A none-too-distant cousin says Peter and Paolo. Many people have grave concerns about this project because to them the idea of extending human rights to the apes is just bizarre; as far as they are concerned, apes are just simply animals. How is that we can extend to them fundamental human rights people in opposition I wonder. Others also have concerns like we’ve discussed with Deb; if these rights were adopted for the apes, they could not be used in medical experiments. These experiments include infection with Hepatitis C and B, HIV to test vaccines, among many other things. Their similarity to us, especially the chimpanzees, makes them valuable tools for research purposes; Not obligatory, just valuable. In conclusion, we want to make clear our argument for the proliferation and the success of the Great Ape Project. We write this paper arguing that these apes are people, deserving of the same rights and the same rights to life as humans. Great apes are thinking, feeling beings that are capable of rationality in their thoughts and compassion in their actions; they have right to not be use as test subjects in cruel laboratory experiments, the right to not be used as property or as tools, not matter the end benefit. They have the right to not be enslaved as pets, or for any human amusement and other entertainment, such as we see in the mass media. Last of all, we asked Deb what the most gratifying part of her involvement with this issue is, and what we learned from her response is that having an impact on individual great apes who are in the process of rehabilitation and recovery is the most rewarding factor in her involvement and is one of the main reasons she has dedicated so much time and has been a professional advocate on this issue for six years. Her heart fills with warmth and satisfaction when she sees them become more healthy and enjoy their lives after surviving a troubled past. That is so extraordinary. This project really has some extremely positive benefits and the results are heart-warming. This is why we chose this issue for our final research project. It is so fascinating. You know, Deb says that her part is very small in this compared to what they must struggle with, but to her their courage and their resilience is inspiring and she hopes that she is making a positive impact no matter that there is a lot more work to do to ensure that great apes all know safety and dignity. She says, “I think that an important and simple step that people can take to improve the lives of fellow apes is to get connected with an organization that works on behalf of great apes to learn more about the animals and what needs to be done. Everyone can find a way to help that suits them.”

~PLAN OF ACTION ~ While the counterargument for using great apes for biomedical research is understandable, we support the great ape project and would like to bring awareness to society about the cause. Our plan of action concerning great apes and the success of their inclusion into the community of equals would be first to create a documentary about the great ape project. We would go into to detail about how closely related human beings and great apes are, documenting certain situations where people could see how close we really are to each other. We would include real life situations, factual data (i.e. charts, and numbers), etc. The purpose of this documentary would be to make people feel connected to these great apes so that they feel like they really do relate to great apes. In addition to having a documentary about this project, we would like to create a social media presence to the bring project. Our generation and future generations are very technologically sound, so we look forward generating an internet base amongst young people. We would create a Facebook site and a Twitter page. On our Facebook site we look forward to sending out weekly newsletters and uploading pictures. On our Twitter account, we would update our followers regularly and let them know the current status of the project as well as any other information about the project and great apes we think they should know. By creating multi-media projects and a social media presence we hope that younger generations will become passionate about this issue. We hope to have lots of followers on Facebook and Twitter to help in our fight for the success of the great ape project.

Bibliography
Cavalieri, Paola, and Peter Singer. The Great Ape Project . New York City: St. Martin's Press, 1993. Print.
Durham, Debra. E-mail interview. 29 Nov. 2010.
"Great Ape Protection." Project GAP. N.p., 2010. Web. 2 Dec. 2010. http://www.greatapeproject.org/en-US.
"Nurtured Chimps Rake It In." Science Daily . N.p., June 2007. Web. 3 Dec. 2010. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070613120858.htm.
"Primates." Animal Research Info. N.p., 2010. Web. 6 Dec. 2010. http://www.animalresearch.info/en/science/animalsused/primates.
"Recent News." Great Ape Standing & Personhood. N.p., June 2008. Web. 4 Dec. 2010. http://www.personhood.org/.