AFTER a in February, police wanted an explanation. Perhaps the ape didn鈥檛 recognise the victim 鈥� who he knew well 鈥� because of a new haircut. Maybe Lyme disease or an anti-anxiety drug sparked the attack.
What else could explain such savage behaviour from a creature who shared 98.4 per cent of his DNA 鈥� and the odd glass of wine 鈥� with his human keepers?
Nonsense, argues in his takedown of such anthropomorphic attitudes. In this book, his first, the former BBC producer synthesises recent genetic, behavioural and neuroscientific research to argue that far more than a handful of genes divides humans from our evolutionary cousins, 6 million years removed.
Advertisement
Take that 98.4 per cent, an oft-repeated figure that has been used to argue that chimps deserve human rights. True, Homo sapiens and Pan troglodytes share an extraordinary amount of genetic similarity 鈥� yet humans and mice share almost as much.
Complete genomes of both species are enabling researchers to map the chasm between human and chimp, which seems to deepen by the year. A good example is FOXP2, a regulatory gene linked to speech and language disorders in humans. FOXP2 in chimps has barely changed in the 130 million years since primates and mice diverged from their common ancestor. But after humans and chimps split, two key changes accumulated on the human line.
Even greater differences may lurk in the areas of the genome once discounted as 鈥渏unk鈥� DNA, which don鈥檛 make proteins but instead determine gene activity. One recently discovered RNA-coding sequence that may be involved in cerebral cortex development was found to vary little between chimps and chickens, yet humans possess 18 unique changes.
Geneticists are right to home in on differences that affect brain development: nowhere is the gulf between humans and chimps wider than in their mental abilities. Psychologists suggest that the ability to infer the mental states of others may underlie language and culture. Children gradually acquire this capacity, called theory of mind, but evidence for it in chimps is equivocal.
From a scientific perspective, however, Taylor鈥檚 polemic takes on a straw man. Most primatologists and psychologists are conservative in their assessments of chimp abilities, and geneticists freely admit how little they know about what separates the two species. Instead, Not a Chimp should be mandatory reading for journalists who often reinforce the general public鈥檚 misconception that chimps are practically human.
Oxford University Press
