Project Nim, by British film maker, James Marsh, recounts the life of a chimpanzee selected for the privilege of being taught American Sign Language. Removed from his mother when he was two weeks old, Nim was passed from human family to human family at the behest of the psychologist in charge of the research, until he finally ended up in a series of cash-strapped wild animal refuges. Nim learned sign language reasonably well, and then used most of his communication skills to beg for food and urge people to play. By chimp standards, he apparently was not a tremendous intellect, but I must admit I know plenty of humans with similar priorities.
On first impression, the film seems like a balanced view of a controversial time in animal research. The scientists, professors, students and technicians interviewed share their human frailties and unfortunately do not come off particularly well. The first surrogate mother admits to breast feeding the infant chimp; a later caregiver admits to sharing joints with the adolescent Nim. The lead scientist clearly had an eye for the babes at a time when carnal relations between professor and student were not so taboo as today.
In one sad scene, the prof is interviewed on American prime time news, and admits that he considers the 'experiment' a failure. There was no 'Galileo Moment', as one observer put it. We aren't told what the experimenters expected. Did they want philosophical insights into the chimp's dark visions? Did they want Nim to tell jokes? Why did they feel compelled to extract this poor animal from his artificial zoo home and immerse him in dysfunctional human families? Why was this necessary to teach him sign language? There is some mumbling about the hot topic of nature versus nurture, but then, who would do such an experiment with one animal, with no replication? Knowing he would be around human children, menstruating women and family pets, why did they not neuter Nim rather than let his testosterone run wild? By focussing on human failings, the film makers cheat the audience out of the answers to questions about the work, questions most viewers won't realize they should be asking.
The movie brought to mind Sara Gruen's recent novel The Ape House, which I considered a clichéed look at the world of primate research and of science in general. But this movie makes me wonder if I was the naive one. The scientists in this film seem every bit as tunnel-visioned as those in Gruen's fiction. Reading more about the rationale behind the actual Nim project after I saw the movie, the deficiencies in the film itself became clearer. The context of Noam Chomsky's work on the linguistic potential of animals is hardly mentioned. Noam Chomsky... Nim Chimpsky... I'm sure it seemed funny at the time.
When I write grant applications, I check off boxes declaring that reviews of animal welfare, environmental impact or biosecurity are not required. These are always an annoyance; I'm a responsible guy, as are most other scientists I know. After seeing this film, I appreciate more why such reviews are needed.
You have to be careful with documentaries. By hiding behind the viewers' trust, that what the film makers show you is true, it is easy to forget about the cutting room floor. In this film, part of the agenda matches mine: scientists are people too. But there is an insidiousness here, an insinuation that because these are imperfect human beings, that their science is arrogant, misguided and of dubious value. We need these stories, but documentary journalism, like science, should be balanced and should not conceal inconvenient facts.
No comments:
Post a Comment