What will happen if we manage to create animals endowed with the same intelligence as ours? As BBC Future found out, it looks like a start has already been made.
Human beings have long believed that it is their unique intelligence that sets them apart from other animals. Our ability for higher forms of learning, creative thinking, and - perhaps most importantly - our complex system of communication through language and speech, determine our position as a higher biological species.
However, as we expand our understanding of the mechanisms of brain functioning and conduct experiments on animals to learn more about which genes are involved in intellectual processes, a significant question arises: will we ever be able to take other species aboard our intellectual ark?
The idea of developing the intellectual abilities of animals is not so unrealizable as it might seem at first glance. Read the research findings, published in September 2014 by Anne Greybill and her colleagues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), on the relationship between intelligence and genes.
A team of American and European scientists genetically engineered mice endowed with a human variant of the FOXP2 gene, which is responsible for the human brain's learning and speech abilities. The goal of the experiment was to find out if the rodents' learning ability would increase as a result of transplanting this gene.
As expected, the improved mice, which had to navigate the maze in search of a treat - chocolate, memorized the way much faster than those rodents that did not add this human gene.
The essence of this research raises questions: is it possible, through fundamental changes and improvements in the mouse brain, to create animals endowed with consciousness, whose level of intelligence will be equal to ours. This concept is called "uplifting" (from the English uplifting), or "elevation" of animals.
Promotional video:
Improved mice learn the road to cheese much faster
In the past, the process of "elevation" of animals was mainly explored by authors of works in the genre of science fiction. One of the main films of last summer is Planet of the Apes. Revolution "(in the original -" Dawn of the Planet of the Apes "). Based on the novel by French writer Pierre Bull, the film by director Matt Reeves tells about the civilization of intelligent primates. Their ancestors were experimental animals that were genetically modified by scientists trying to find a cure for Alzheimer's disease.
The story told in the film has parallels with real-life research. In 2011, a team of researchers led by Sam Dedwyler of Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem, North Carolina conducted experiments with rhesus monkeys, in which they studied the factors leading to the loss of thought control in people with Alzheimer's disease. …
Scientists trained monkeys to perform intellectual tasks, including memorizing and recognizing images and symbols. During training, macaques were given doses of cocaine to dull their mental faculties and forced to repeat the experience. The results were predictably less dramatic after taking the drug.
What happened in the next stage of the study deserves special attention. The same monkeys were implanted in the brain with neural prostheses - implants designed to monitor and correct neurons that have failed under the influence of cocaine. The implants have successfully restored the normal functioning of the brain of drug-exposed monkeys.
The most important result of the experiments was that if the neural prostheses were activated before the monkeys drugged, the primates' success was superior to what they showed during the original experiments. The goal of the experiment was to find out if neural prostheses could, at least in theory, restore decision-making ability in people with trauma or ailments such as Alzheimer's. These experiments showed that at least the monkeys made neural prostheses "smarter".
All of this means that we seem to be entering the era of animal uplifting, says George Dvorsky of the Institute for Ethics and New Technologies, which studies the implications of new technologies. “However, in essence, it is still too early to talk about any quantitative changes that can have serious effects on the 'intelligence' of animals,” he continues. “Uplifting of the kind described in science fiction will require far more advanced technology than we currently have.
This does not mean that we will not be able to develop such technologies over time, primarily because, for example, they will help us study the cognitive problems that arise in humans, including Alzheimer's, through animal experiments.
It is important to understand that the idea of “elevation” may seem fantastic, and this is not exactly the goal we should be aiming for. However, the potential gain for medicine in terms of creating new opportunities to combat human disease and injury means that further progress on the path leading to “exaltation” is inevitable.
The manipulation of animals has gone so far that bioethics specialists have paid close attention to them. In 2011, the UK Academy of Medical Sciences produced a special report on the ethical aspects of research in animals containing human material and devoted an entire session to the topic of brain manipulation and experiences with the cognitive system.
(Earlier, in 2010, the marketing and sociological research company IpsosMORI conducted a public opinion poll on how experiments with animals containing human material are perceived in society. It turned out that people know little about such experiments. The majority of respondents supported the experiments with animals containing human material, believing that they will help fight disease. - Ed.)
The problem has sparked passionate debate among theorists. Some of them, such as Dvorsky, believe that the discussion should go further and not be limited to consideration of advances in medicine and science. Dvorsky believes in the "ethical imperative of uplift" and argues that advances in technology should be shared with animals to free them from the dull formula of "fittest survives." Technology must be as accessible to animals as it is to humans.
“Since we are responsible for this planet, our moral imperative is not only to free ourselves from the Darwinian paradigm, but also to help all beings on Earth to do so. Our journey into a post-biological, post-Darwinian state will be shared, says Dvorsky.
David Brin, a writer and NASA consultant whose science fiction novels have helped fuel the uplifting idea, is moving towards a somewhat more pragmatic cause. He hopes that the newly intelligent animal species will share with us the responsibility for preserving the environment.
“The oceans of planet Earth are a vast mystery, full of riches, unique treasures that must be preserved,” he says. “We're trying to learn how to be good stewards of our planet, but I doubt we can handle this role alone. We will not be able to come close to this goal, even if we have intelligent partners (and critics) on our side - the dolphins. The same is true for other opportunities for profit and wisdom."
(Nearly half of David Brin's writings, laureate of many literary awards, are devoted to the idea of “ascension.” All creatures that breathe oxygen can develop intelligence and make interplanetary travel. People in his novels are the weakest race economically and technologically. Brin's books tell about the civilizations of “neodelphins” and “neochimpanzees.” It was he who introduced the term uplifting into circulation. - Ed.)
For others, this whole idea presents one big problem. Paul Graham Raeven of the University of Sheffield believes that the “exaltation” position manifests biological and scientific arrogance and a false belief in the superiority of man over nature and that human intelligence is the highest achievement of evolution.
This, perhaps, is the main dilemma of the entire discussion of "elevation." Dvorsky, Bryn, and others believe that endowing other creatures with intelligence will benefit them. Raven doubts that we have the moral right to make this decision for them and without their consent.
“It is considered indisputable that we know better what is good for beings other than us. Our knowledge of what is good for our own species is not obvious, and I am not inclined to trust this conclusion, no matter what good intentions it may be dictated,”says Raven.