Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Julia Fischer

2016; Elsevier BV; Volume: 26; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/j.cub.2016.01.002

1879-0445

Julia Fischer,

Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior

Julia Fischer is a Professor of Cognitive Ethology at the German Primate Center and the Georg-August-University in Göttingen, Germany. She studies the evolution of communication, cognition and social behaviour, with a focus on nonhuman primates. She combines field work on free-ranging Guinea baboons, a species that had been only little studied in the wild before, with cognitive testing of monkeys at the German Primate Center and the enclosure ‘La Forêt des Singes’ in France. She is the speaker of the Leibniz Science Campus for Primate Cognition in Göttingen and a member of the Senate of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, the largest independent research funding organisation in Germany. She won the Grüter Prize for Science Communication. How would you describe your career path? It’s funny how my development now looks like a straight line, but it certainly did not feel that way. When I was seven or eight, my mum gave me a book on some of the early experimental scientists: Kepler, Van Leuvenhook, Galvani, and of course Galileo Galileo. I read it over and over again, and I really liked biology as a subject in school; but I also liked languages, literature, social sciences, philosophy, and drama. I could not make up my mind, so I kept drifting until I ended up in Berlin, studying Biology. And I thought: this is it. I just wasn’t sure whether I wanted to study Marine Biology or Plant Physiology. In the end, it was neither and I opted for the field with the best teachers: Behavioural Biology and Neuroscience. In this area, I had met the most inspiring and intellectual thinkers. Only later I realized that studying the communication, cognition and social behaviour of nonhuman primates unites my diverse interests — and the drama class I had taken at school came in handy for teaching. There were also some surprises on the way. For instance, I found that I really liked being outdoors: we sailed to Iceland from the Baltic, for instance, on a 39-foot sloop; and I loved going on bird excursions, although I could not tell a blackbird from a starling in the beginning. What drew you to your specific subject? We had read How Monkeys See the World by Dorothy Cheney and Robert Seyfarth in our Journal Club. They instantly became my heroes, and greatly influenced the choice of subject for my Masters and later PhD thesis. It was my dream to work with them, but I did not dare to approach them. I met them at the International Primatological Society’s meeting in Madison, almost 20 years ago now, and nervously delivered my talk, with Dorothy in the room. We had lunch later on and then they offered me a postdoc position, to work on wild baboons in the Okavango Delta of Botswana. I could not believe my luck. The day we finalized the contract, I sent them an email, promising that I would be really careful, and Dorothy replied: you better be, just yesterday a tourist was eaten by a crocodile not far from our camp. It was an incredible time, and yes, there were some close shaves with wild animals. We were chased up trees by lions, ran from buffalo, and had to dig out the car from black cotton mud with our bare hands. But mostly, we hung out with 84 baboons who granted us some glimpses into their world — an eternal soap opera. I was fascinated how they deal with the intricate complexities of their social lives, but I was also struck by the things they apparently do not understand, or do not seem to care about. It was a fantastic experience to work with Robert and Dorothy — they were not only exceptional mentors, but have become true friends along the way. Who else shaped the way you conduct your science? I was really fortunate to have been elected into ‘Die Junge Akademie’, the German ‘Young Academy’, which was founded by the Berlin-Brandenburgische Academy of Sciences and Humanities and the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. Membership is for five years, so there is continual renewal, but you also know that you have to take advantage of being a member before you are out the door again. I met a bunch of wonderful open-minded and inspiring scientists from all disciplines, who collectively altered the way I do research, and more profoundly, the way I teach. It was a good school for communicating across boundaries, and true blue-sky thinking. I established a number of fruitful scientific collaborations, but I also found some dear friends. Do you miss being in the field? Not really — I get to go to Senegal to our field site for a few weeks every year, and there are so many other interesting things to do. When I started in Göttingen, I had the opportunity to develop an integrated research program that combines fieldwork and cognitive testing of monkeys housed at the German Primate Center. For instance, we found that our monkeys compare to apes in the famous Primate Cognition Test Battery. We also work in a monkey park in France where we do field experiments and behavioural observations. Presently, we are studying the effects of old age on social behaviour and cognitive performance. But the most exciting studies are those where field and lab work inform each other: we observe specific social behaviours in the field, and then we try to elucidate the underpinning cognitive processes in the lab. This mostly pertains to social knowledge and in which way the processing of social information is different from processing information more generally. And then we have some spin-offs. For example, the structure of nonhuman primate vocalizations is largely innate, indicating that some developmental constraints may be at work. Enter the FOXP2 gene, and its intriguing molecular evolution. We became part of the consortium led by Wolfgang Enard and Svante Pääbo, to elucidate the effects of the ‘humanized’ version of FOXP2 in the mouse. As it turned out, the vocalizations were not affected. With our expertise in the analysis of ultrasonic vocalizations of mice, we have started a number of collaborations. Unfortunately, we ultimately found that mice do not learn their vocalizations either, and even mice that lack large parts of the cortex and the hippocampus vocalize just fine. Thus, mice do not seem to be great models for studying vocal learning. What do you do at your field site? In Senegal, we have set up the field station ‘CRP Simenti’ in the Niokolo Koba National Park in the Southeast of the country. It seems to be the hottest place on earth, but the Guinea baboons that roam there are magnificent. Little was known about them before. Because they are so shy, it took us almost three years to get them used to us. They live in a multilevel system, where smaller groups team up to larger aggregations in a relatively predictable fashion. Females affiliate with one male at a time, but surprisingly, they seem to be able to switch between males at their own leisure. Walking with the baboons, even in scorching heat, makes me very happy. Unfortunately, my main task now is managerial: I have to meet with the Senegalese authorities, try to get documents for the car, write reports, work with a local NGO to organize the trash removal from the park, and so on. Fieldwork requires a number of capabilities that are not part of the normal curriculum, including fixing solar panels or water pipes dug up by elephants. It is not easy to find people who love watching baboons, are willing to take up with the living conditions, eager to crunch numbers in R, spend time in the lab doing hormone analyses, and who also like to think about the broader significance of their study. So far we have been pretty lucky, but my impression is that the ‘field biologist’ is bound to go extinct. People have turned offers for fieldwork down because they would not have constant access to Facebook. What do you consider to be the biggest challenge in your field? Staying aware of the limits of our knowledge, and also of the limits of our potential knowledge. Take the baboon model, for instance. The genus is intriguing because of the diversity of their social systems, the variety of habitats they live in, and so forth. But then there are only six species, at least according to the phylogenetic species concept. With such a small sample size, I don’t see how we will ever be able to draw firm conclusions about the drivers of their social evolution. I also suspect that the variation within each taxon is not sufficiently clear, and the sampling effort to collect the data necessary to judge within and between species differences would be humongous. Nevertheless, we are inclined to put forward strong ideas, and that’s all fine and good and keeps us going, but we should also flag our uncertainties and discuss the limits of what we can ever know. The same applies to ape cognitive evolution, or the evolution of speech. Perhaps Wilhelm von Humboldt was right when he declared that the origin of speech is a question that cannot be answered. Any remedies in sight? Firstly, I think we should put more emphasis on careful observations of the animals’ behaviour, preferably in their natural habitat. We should acknowledge the value of making available the primary data. There are probably hundreds of studies on primate grooming — but too few people report simple information such as grooming rates, which would be great to stitch information from different sources together. Instead, we tend to be obsessed with the outcome of elaborate statistical testing. To be clear, I am a great fan of hypothesis testing; but we should acknowledge the importance of detailed observations and descriptions of nature for developing meaningful hypotheses. In the end, the judgment should be whether a study helps us to understand some biological phenomenon better, not whether it conforms to a certain formulaic scheme. And secondly, we have to take the replication crisis much more seriously. I am sometimes shuddering when I think about the effects of the publication bias and the small sample sizes in our field. How many studies would stand the test of replication? How many false positive findings are out there? And how many negative results are stashed away in some file drawers? Did the replication crisis change the way you conduct your research? We try to maximize the number of subjects we are observing or testing. But there are many limits: not all of the long-tailed macaques at the German Primate Center come in for testing and participation is on a voluntary basis, so we may end up with just nine or ten subjects. You just have to be extremely cautious when you draw your conclusions; the likelihood of obtaining both false negatives and false positives is unfortunately very high. In the monkey park in France, we are better off: we just completed a study with more than a hundred subjects. In Senegal, we take scan data from two groups or ‘gangs’, as we call them, comprising about 120 subjects, but detailed focal observations are only possible for around 30 or 40 subjects, if you want a certain sampling depth. At least it’s reassuring when the observations by many different students all yield the same general pattern, despite some appreciable variation between individual baboons and also between the two gangs. Ultimately, we will need to form large-scale consortia and pool our data, to overcome some of the problems I mentioned before. Anything else on your wish list? A time machine.