Jane Goodall, "The Mind of the Chimpanzee" and "Bridging the Gap"

Questions for Making Connections Within the Reading:

1. Clearly, Jane Goodall draws on scientific research, but she does not make her case on strictly scientific grounds or in the format of a scientific article. What different kinds of evidence does Goodall offer in support of her argument for the existence of "animal minds"? Notice that she refers not simply to different writers but also to sources of knowledge other than written ones. Why might she have chosen this eclectic approach?

2. How would you characterize Goodall's attitude toward the scientific community? Is it simply negative--the perspective of a disappointed former member? Or is it more complex and more nuanced than that? Does Goodall believe that science should attempt to include emotions and experience as legitimate forms of evidence? If scientists attempted to include them, what might be the consequences?

3. Goodall's second chapter, "Bridging the Chasm," ends on a rather ominous note. "Unless we act soon," she warns, "our closest relatives may soon exist only in captivity, condemned, as a species, to human bondage." Here Goodall's argument extends beyond chimpanzees to our relationship with the natural world in general. Why might existence in captivity do harm to chimpanzees? What's wrong with "human bondage"? Does she mean that we should view animals as our equals in some respect with the rights we might afford other human beings?

Questions for Writing:

1. Is Goodall a scientist? Can one be a scientist and an activist at the same time? Is science by definition committed to improving the human condition? To the pursuit of truth? To understanding the nature of reality? Define science and discuss whether Goodall's methods for studying the natural world meet your definition.

2. Toward the end of her argument, Goodall makes the following observation: "only humans are capable of performing acts of self-sacrifice with full knowledge of the costs that may have to be borne--not only at the time, but also, perhaps, at some future date." In this passage, does Goodall reinforce the great divide between humans and other animals after arguing for so many pages about their profound similarities? Given all that Goodall tells us about our kinship with chimpanzees, do you believe that it is really possible for us to "overcome," as Goodall says, "the dictates of our biological natures"? Is it merely human arrogance to think that we can have a "full knowledge" of anything?

Questions for Making Connections Between Readings:

1. Goodall describes chimpanzees as "more like us than is any other living creature." But if Ian Wilmut and his colleagues are successful in creating animals who can generate donor organs for humans, will Goodall's statement be true any longer? How is one to decide when using animals to improve the quality of life for humans is acceptable? Is this a moral decision, an ethical choice, or something one comes to through reasoned argument?

2. Has evolution decreed our superiority over all animals, or do we misuse the language of biology when we speak in this way? Drawing on Stephen Jay Gould's essay, "What Does the Dreaded 'E' Word Mean Anyway," discuss what Goodall's research suggests about the role humans have to play in the evolutionary process.

More Goodall assignments . . . .