"You can't make a monkey out of us": Galen and genetics versus Darwin Diamandopoulos A. and Goudas P. Summary The views on the biological relationship between human and ape are polarized. O n e end is summarized by the axiom that "mon is the third chimpanzee", a thesis put forward in an indirect way initially by Charles Darwin in the 19 th century.The other is a very modern concept that although similar, the human and ape genomes are distinctly different. We have compared these t w o views on the subject w i t h the stance of the ancient medical w r i t e r Galen.There is a striking resemblance between current and ancient opinion on three key issues. Firstly, on the fact that man and apes are similar but not identical. Secondly, on the influence of such debates on fields much wider than biology.And finally, on the comparative usefulness of apes as a substitute for human anatomy and physiology studies. Resume Les points de vue concernant les liens biologiques existants entre etre humain et singe sont polarises selon une seule direction. A I'extreme, on pourrait resumer ce point de vue par I'axiome selon lequel « I'homme est le troisieme chimpanze ». Cette these fut indirectement soutenue par Charles Darwin, au I9eme siecle. L'autre point de vue est un concept tres moderne soutenant la similitude mais non I'identite entre les genomes de I'homme et du singe. Nous avons compare ces deux points de vue sur le sujet en mentionnant celui du medecin ecrivain Galien, dans I'Antiquite. II existe une ressemblance frappante entre I'opinion courante et celle d'Antiquite sur ces trois questions clefs. La premiere assertion soutient que I'homme et le singe, s'ils apparaisement similaires, ne sont nullement identiques. La seconde insiste sur I'influence que pourraient avoir de tels debats sur des champs plus larges que celui de la seule biologie. La derniere assertion a trait elle a I'utilite comparee des singes et de I'homme, les premiers constituant un substitut aux etudes d'anatomie et de physiologie humaines. Introduction animals in pursuit of knowledge of o u r o w n anatomy "... Because imitating is inherent in and physiology? humans from childhood and that is their In the following paragraphs, we explain current opinions difference, that they are most imitative..."' and Galen's views on these questions. Mimesis, imitation, has been a fundamental characteristic a) Every novel scientific discovery gives rise to of human civilization as is evident f rom the extract of numerous arguments between scholars of different Aristotle cited above. The ability of apes to imitate has disciplines. This was so when Galileo put f o r w a r d his aroused human curiosity f r o m t i m e i m m e m o r i a l . thesis on the motion of the earth, when Darwin Traditionally, the History of Medicine is thought of as the published his t h e o r y of evolution and when Einstein faculty that shows modern scientists, (in a somewhat published his t h e o r y of relativity.This happened because these theories go far beyond investigating natural or exuberant way), the wise answers that scientists of the cosmological history, since all kinds of scholars, past have produced for various problems. We believe politicians, theologists and artists tend to interpret and that the main contribution that History of Medicine exploit new knowledge according to their o w n beliefs offers to the evolution of scientific thinking is to reveal and dogmatic stances. For, as Wes Bertrand stated in the questions our intellectual forbears posed and the 2000 AD (Wes Bertrand. Cognition in primates. 2000, insight with which they had tried to answer, albeit not http://www.logicallearning.net/cogprimates.html), there always in a practical manner. This stands true for the are three types of researchers w h o may do comparative field of bioethics 2 as well as for the field of genetics 3. In studies between apes and humans: "Those who desire to this article, we discuss Galen's thesis on the question of confirm their hopes that chimps are in the same conceptual the relationship between human and ape. category as humans, those who are skeptical and seek to Ever since Darwin (1809-1882) put forward the theory disprove any such notion and those who are simply on a that man is but an evolved ape, fierce debate has quest of knowledge regardless of the consequences". continued. We can summarize the relevant issues in Similarly, Galen (I st -2 nd cent. A D ) , the famous d o c t o r of three questions: the Greco-Roman period, stated: "Anatomical study has a) Is it w o r t h putting large efforts into examining h o w an one application for the natural philosopher who loves animal has developed and what its connections w i t h knowledge for its own sake, another for him who values it humans are? only in order to demonstrate that nature does nothing in b) Is man really the modern ape or is he a different vain, a third for one who, via anatomy, provides himself with although similar species? data for investigating a function, physical or mental, and yet c) Irrespective of the ape/human relationship, are there another for the practitioner who has to remove splinters and scientific advantages in using apes as experimental 61 You Can't Make A Monkey Out Of Us, Vesalius, X I , I I , 61-63, 2005 missiles efficiently, to exercise body-parts properly, or to treat notion that apes are but primitive anthropoids ulcers, fistulae and abscesses" 4 survived to the Middle Ages and beyond (fig. I), c) Despite their reservations, Frazer and colleagues b) Although for the traditional adherents to Darwin's suggested "So chimps are good for practising doctors and 5 theory "Humans are the third chimpanzee" , in a recent researchers". Galen's attitude was similar when stressing 6 article , Frazer and colleagues examined the genetic that apes are excellent for experimentation "And from resemblance of man and non-human primate f r o m a the apes you should choose the ones that look more human different point of view. Using state-of-the-art processing and learn the nature of their bones accurately.'"' From the technologies, they managed to trace significant above comparisons between current views and Galen's differences in the chromosomes of the t w o species. similar stance, it can be assumed that the ancients "[This study] provides a valuable starting point from which considered the apes similar but different from man.Two to improve our understanding of what makes human beings more extracts from medical w r i t e r s of the same era unique" said Dr. David Cox, Perlegen's chief scientific strengthen this assumption. Aretaeus from Cappadocia officer and co-author of the study. "These results suggest ( I s t cent. A D ) , whilst prescribing a remedy for facial that genomic rearrangements are responsible for a oedema, recommended mixing the ashes from vine- significant fraction of DNA sequence differences between branches with the fat of some exotic animals and humans and chimpanzees, accounting for about 50% as applying the mixture to the face. The remedy was much DNA variation as single nucleotide fixed differences considered potent because: «/t is excellent [to use] a [...] These arrangements provide excellent starting points substance that looks alike with something unlike it, as exactly for focused studies of gene expression differences in humans a monkey to man»."> Also, Soranus (2 nd cent. AD) refers and chimpanzees as part of an effort to identify the genetic to the story of some pregnant w o m e n w h o after seeing differences responsible for the biological, physiological and t w o monkeys copulate, gave birth to "monkey- behavior differences between them". A reporter, //ke"children." commenting on the above findings concluded that: "You The best argument about the ancient Greek writers' can't make a monkey out of us". For, as Wes Bertrand adherence to the theory that the species are similar but states: "In reading about the chimpanzees' mental feats, one not identical is the very t e r m they used for naming an gets the impression that they view the whole process ape. It was "pithikos", a noun deriving from the future as a game. Most of their behavior consisted of requests, tense "pithiso" of the verb "pitho" which means "/ am not functionally different than a dog that barks to be let persuasive, or capable of deceit", because an ape (pithikus) outside or playfully brings one a rope to play tug-of-war". is capable, due to its resemblance to man, of persuading Galen gave the "naturalists" of his era a surprisingly the simple-minded that it is identical to man. 12 similar, almost verbatim, answer:"[...] And that a monkey Later, the Romans used the Latin t e r m "simio" to stand is a laughable effigy of a human has been proven, and for for ape and this may derive f ro m the w o r d "similes, that reason it walks like a man but hobbling, mainly because similo" because of the monkey's similarity with humans 13 . 7 he lacks the upright limbs structure". Even later, in Medieval Britain, an ape was used to He continues:" [...] And if you have seen it didn't you notice represent the quack that imitated medical doctors. 14 It is at all how thin and short and totally ridiculous, just like the apparent that m o d e r n knowledge on ape genetics whole animal, the monkey, is? In the manner of someone verifies the name that the Greeks had for it.