Animals Make Us Human: Creating the Best Life for Animals

Jane Goodall is one of the most important wildlife researchers of the 20th century, but the author notes that Goodall’s career trajectory was not typical. She initially had a secretarial education and saved up money to visit a friend in Kenya because she was interested in chimpanzees. She got a PhD only after she discovered that chimps use tools and eat meat, as this revelation completely altered scientists’ understanding of the distinction between humans and animals. (Prior to Goodall’s discovery, tool usage was seen as the trait that made humans “human.”) After Goodall’s discovery, scientists recalibrated their approach to the animal-human distinction. 

Grandin appreciates the value in a scientific landscape in which Goodall was able to pursue a career through back channels, as Grandin herself also had to take a non-traditional route. She notes that her autism makes algebra and statistics difficult because she cannot visualize them. During her doctoral studies, her professor had to assess her work differently because she could master the necessary material but could not pass a test on it. She also notes that her social skills hinder her ability to communicate and that she doesn’t always understand how she is perceived. She has almost lost positions because her neurotypical supervisors found her to be “weird,” but on occasion, she was able to prove her worth by compiling a portfolio of her work.

Still, she laments the general climate in the scientific world, opining that although fieldwork like Goodall’s is where the most important scientific discoveries are made, there is an overuse of sophisticated mathematical modeling. Studies that rely only on fieldwork without the use of computer or statistical models are perceived as lacking rigor. In this regard, there are fewer “backdoor” channels for researchers like Grandin, who are gifted fieldworkers but lack traditional mathematical skills. 

She points out that much of what scientists understand about animals comes from observing them in the wild. Animals in captivity do not behave the same way as wild animals, and statistical modeling cannot show scientists how animals actually live. Dolphins and whales live in complex social groups that scientists would not have been able to observe using either captive animals or computer-based modeling systems. Similar work has been done on chimps, wild birds, and countless other species. Observing animals in the wild, in their natural habitat, is an invaluable part of any program of serious scientific research.

More practical scientific fields also rely on the kind of observational science that good fieldwork entails. Epidemiology, for example, first studied lung cancer by observing that smokers are more likely to develop lung disorders. The organized studies, lab work, mathematical modeling, and more formal research all followed scientists’ initial observations. The kind of innovations that have emerged in lung disorder research were all dependent on observational research, and the author argues that in fields like epidemiology, more credit should be given to observation. She also notes that fieldwork does not have to happen in the “wild.” Her own work for agri-businesses uses observational research, and it is by observing animal behavior in commercial settings like cattle ranches, feed lots, chicken barns, and slaughterhouses that she has been able to develop industry solutions that take animal behavior into account when developing animal-welfare standards.

Observational science can also help protect wildlife. The author notes that the worldwide cheetah population lacks genetic diversity because of a mass death event more than 10,000 years ago. The remaining cheetahs were forced to interbreed to survive, and as a result, the entire species is comprised of animals so closely related that they are nearly clones. Scientists were unable to breed cheetahs in captivity until careful observation in the wild revealed that cheetahs need to be separated by sex and that female cheetahs choose their mates, not the other way around. 

Observational science has also helped scientists to better understand elephants. Violent behavior in males puzzled researchers until observation in the wild revealed complex PTSD; male elephants have become traumatized on a species-wide scale after watching the matriarchs and patriarchs in their society violently killed by poachers. This knowledge has helped researchers to captively breed elephants and teach them nonviolent behavior.

Observational science can also protect the environment. Alaskan fishermen used to worry that bears would eat so much salmon that there would not be enough for commercial fishing; bears “overfish” in that they catch a fish and eat either only the roe or a small portion of the meat, leaving the carcass behind to rot. However, observational science revealed that this “wasted” salmon was actually crucial to the environment. The leftover fish became food for other animals and also fertilized the soil. The high levels of nitrogen from dead salmon was critical to preserving the soil conditions that the area needed. Grazing on the Great Plains was also similarly misunderstood, as bison and other grazers actually help the grasslands rather than hurting them. Scientists worried about the damaging impact of overgrazing, but observation of the complex relationship between bison, grass, and soil disproved their initial theories.

Grandin argues that the sciences have departed from the hands-on learning that used to be standard. Students can no longer build items with their hands, use compasses, or draw and draft. Instead, they are taught computer modeling too early and have lost touch with the practical skills that all scientists used to have. She argues that hands-on science, like observational research, is just as important to the field as computer modeling is.

Grandin points out that observational research can be used to improve commercial animal treatment. Many people believe that activist organizations drive change in the way that animals are treated in factories, on farms, and in the kind of laboratories that cosmetics and household product companies use for testing, but Grandin explains that this is not necessarily the case. Those organizations are often extreme and do not fully understand the ramifications of the changes they seek to institute. She notes the closure of all horse slaughter facilities in the US as an example. The slaughterhouses were closed to stop animal cruelty, but as a result, horses are now sent to Mexico, where they are overworked, improperly fed, and treated terribly until they collapse from exhaustion. This is not an ethical solution, and it is not in the best interest of the animals. Grandin instead advocates for a middle-of-the-road approach. Her work is based on observational research and scientific understandings of principles like the core emotional systems and has led corporations like McDonald’s to implement better animal welfare standards while preserving profits and avoiding harsh, unintended consequences.

Her work with commercial animals has led her to believe that wildlife conservation should have an economic component. Animals like rhinos, elephants, and zebras must be made commercially profitable to the countries in which they live. They are currently valuable to poachers, which is why their population is declining, but if they were valuable to local economies—perhaps in the form of wildlife sanctuaries and national parks—then this shift would lead to better preservation going forward. Grandin argues that increasing the value of wild animals to governments and improving the standards of general wildlife conservation requires new generations of researchers to be trained. She is doing this work with her own students, but she also advocates for a systemic return to observational science.

Zoos used to house animals in sterile enclosures that did not resemble the natural habitats and lacked crucial enrichment. However, practices have changed in recent decades, and it is now more common for zoos to recreate the kind of environment in which animals live in when in the wild. There are also better animal welfare practices. Zoos routinely observe animals to make sure that their behavior is normal, that they are engaged in activity, and that they can fully relax when at rest. The author hopes that zoos will continue to train staff to recognize abnormal behavior that results from stress and trauma.

Zookeepers also must be mindful of the core emotional systems. Prey animals struggle with fear, and fear can stem from experiences that do not register to their handlers as intimidating. She cites an example of a herd of antelope that sometimes exhibited signs of fear and sometimes seemed calm. There was a sign near the enclosure that was only visible sometimes, and it was yellow. Yellow is a color that sparks fear in antelopes and was causing the reaction. The zookeepers were sensitive to the presence of predators or sudden movement, but they neglected the sign because to them, it was an everyday object.

Zookeepers and handlers must also habituate animals to medical procedures. Grandin cites the example of a small enclosure used to pen antelopes so that their blood can be drawn. When the animals were not trained to enter the small space and remain there calmly, they experienced fear and rage. Rage is triggered by confinement, and the antelope could not tolerate being confined when they had not been shown that the space posed no threat.

For predators, seeking and playing are more important than fear. Grandin cites the example of polar bears in captivity. Providing one particular polar bear with a series of barrels, each with different buoyancy, helped to reduce his stress. Because the toys allowed him to play, he spent less  time pacing. Other predators like big cats also benefit from play and can use toys and games to fulfill their seeking needs. Enhancements like this are critical; because it is unethical to provide zoo animals with live prey, they do not get to hunt as they would in the wild.

Animals can also be taught to work for their food in order to stimulate the seeking drive. In the wild, predators hunt everything that they eat. In captivity, they are provided food. The author notes one zoo that developed a special mechanism that dispensed food to primates only after they had pulled a series of levers and performed a series of adjustments. The primates were much happier, enjoyed their food more, and exhibited fewer problematic behaviors. Installing the work-for-food system had wide-ranging benefits for all of the animals.

Positive reinforcement is another way to activate the seeking drive. Animals can be taught that they will get treats when they exhibit desirable behavior, and that process itself becomes a fun game. Positive reinforcement is also an effective technique because it allows zookeepers to train animals while enriching the animals’ lives. The author does note that the treats have to be high-value. Wild animals will quickly learn to ignore unpalatable treats. Novelty can also be used to active seeking. Small changes in an animal’s enclosure that are not large enough to be stressful can be fun for animals to explore and more closely mimic life in the wild.

Zookeepers also must be mindful of panic. Animals should be kept in social groups that resemble wild social groupings. This is not always possible with species like elephants, but animals must be allowed to remain with their companions. All animals experience panic when isolated, and animals in zoos are subject to higher stress levels than animals in the wild. Therefore, the utmost care should be taken to prevent panic in zoo animals.

People often ask the author why she continues to work in the meat industry when she knows how cruel its conditions can be. She notes that while she has observed dismal animal welfare standards, she has also worked with many people who do care about the animals on their farms. She has dedicated her life to improving conditions for commercial animals and feels that her time has been better spent in helping animals than in fighting against an industry that is not likely to disappear completely. She also gets asked whether animals in slaughterhouses know that they are about to die, and she does not think that they do. She mostly observes calm behavior, especially in plants that have implemented her systems. 

She argues that animal-human relationships must be symbiotic, even in commercial industries. Humans must provide cattle, pigs, chickens, and other animals with good lives in exchange for the use of their meat. She argues that some cattle have better lives than pet dogs; many pet dogs are left alone all day with no enrichment, in a state of panic due to separation anxiety. Grandin argues that quality of life matters, and if a commercial animal can be given a good, quality life, she sees no problem with the practice of raising animals for slaughter.