Primates & HIV

One of the most stunning, controversial, medical and scientific developments of the last several decades has been the discovery and emergence of HIV, or Human Immunodeficiency Virus. In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated that the number of people living with HIV globally was 34 million (AIDS epidemic 2010). In the same year, AIDS (the disease caused by chronic infection with HIV) was responsible for approximately 1.8 million deaths. HIV has also been a scary development in the United States, as viral transmission shifts from a focus on homosexual individuals to heterosexuals of all races and ages. Biologists, anthropologists, and other researchers often disagree on the exact point of origin of HIV, and how it emerged in the human species. These academic questions are exacerbated by the media and conspiracy theorists with a number of creative explanations, many of which have now been discredited. In this blog, I will provide an overview of what actually occurred and address two popular but misguided theories. 

Viral Structure of HIV 1

First of all, there are two forms of HIV circulating in the human species, HIV-1 (common) and HIV-2 (only found in West Africa). Based on genetic analysis, these viruses are derived from a class of viruses called SIVs, or Simian Immunodeficiency Virus (simian aka Old World monkeys). Researchers believe that based on significant genetic similarities, SIVsm (from sooty mangabey monkeys) transformed into HIV-2, and SIVcpz (from chimpanzee monkeys) transformed into HIV-1. While the viral origin is no longer in doubt, exactly why the virus jumped and how it manifests itself differently in humans than primates is still under evaluation. Researchers do know that these SIVs often do not cause deadly disease in infected primates.

This entire body of evidence is contrary to some popular, misguided theories that seek to explain HIV and its financial and social devastation on the emerging world. Jakob Segal's (German university biologist) story is well known - that HIV was engineered by the US government in the 1970s and tested on prisoners before it was released. However, this theory was disproved as genetic analysis shows the virus existed as early as 1920. Another infamous theory comes from the development of the polio virus. This theory claims that the polio virus, developed in chimpanzee tissue, was contaminated with some SIV and introduced to the Congo in Africa in the 1950s - once again, the timing is too late as HIV had already made the jump to the human species.

Theories aside, much work is yet to be done to understand the specific moment or moments of transmission to our species. Genetic analysis can only take us so far, and then cultural anthropologists and historians must step in. Human interaction with nature, including bush meat and blood rituals, are perhaps the key to understanding a critical moment in the history of human disease. 

Primates Portrayal in Film

The human species has a special connection with and relationship to primates, and not simply because we share up to 96% of our DNA. Throughout media developments of the last 50 years, major motion pictures have addressed and engaged with the topic of primates. Sometimes monkeys are involved as sidekicks in popular movies such as Aladdin, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Ace Ventura: Pet Detective. However, most film makers choose to use primates as a method to achieve fear for cinematic purposes, rather than convey more meaningful messages. In this post, I will discuss three films in particular, Congo (1995), Outbreak (1995), and Planet of the Apes (1968, 2001, 2011) to analyze how primates can be portrayed.    

The movie Congo, released in 1995, is based on a Michael Crichton novel and stars Laura Linney and Dylan Walsh. In this film, a greedy corporation seeks a supply of rare diamonds and sends a research and recovery team deep into gorilla-dominated Congo. The gorillas in this film are considered a "special" breed, the "white ape" or a aggressive variation of the common Silverback Gorilla. The film makers present gorillas that are highly intelligent, organized, and combative and vicious as they battle with the humans sent to explore the diamond territory. An interesting undertone is that humans choose to insert themselves into this more "unpredictable" natural environment for personal and corporate gain. Sadly, the movie slogan sums up the theme and portrayal of these primates: "Congo: where you are the endangered species."

The next film, Outbreak, also released in 1995 (Year of the Monkey in Film?) stars Dustin Hoffman, Rene Russo, Morgan Freeman, and a very critical, white-headed capuchin monkey from Zaire. In this film, the film makers take a different approach from the movie Congo, developing a concept of fear around primates using a viral infection disaster. The plot features a monkey, carrying a lethal Ebola-like virus, removed from its natural habitat in Africa and soon sparking a deadly outbreak in a small California town. As scientists try to understand the virus, it becomes clear that the one primate is the cause and the potential cure of the disease. The film makers offer a fairly reasonable scenario of viral outbreak, but use a primate over any other carrier (rat, bird, pig, bat, etc). Once again, like in the movie Congo, human disruption of the natural environment in Zaire and the monkey's extraction to a California pet store are at the heart of the problem. Despite Dustin Hoffman's acting and the fictional plot, the movie made some media headlines highlighting the fact that government forces would struggle to stop an imported, deadly disease. 

  












The final film for our discussion is the blockbuster series of hits, Planet of the Apes. This movie has been done (1968), re-done as a TV series (1974), re-created as a modern film (2001), and again recently, completely refreshed as The Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011). In these films, film makers experiment with a much more interesting primate concept. In another world in another time, could monkeys have evolved to be superior to humans in intellect? Planet of the Apes explores a world in which monkeys rule, maintain order with law, develop poetry, art, and fine dining, and subject humans to cruel slavery. The newest version of the series of movies features more content from the primate's point of view, with experimentation on him as well as torture and neglect at a "primate rehabilitation center." Humans can be fascinated with the potential monkeys have to learn, think, and adapt as humans do, and these movies balance thought with action. Interestingly enough, The Rise of the Planet of the Apes concludes with a large group of escaped primates gaining something precious: their freedom to explore the California redwood forests. 

To conclude, primates are typically portrayed in film to produce the cinematic effect of fear. This presentation is questionable considering the generally peaceful nature of primates and our growing understanding of their ability to learn and reason. Perhaps, in the future, film makers will make better attempts to carefully engage with the topic and balance plot points with more realistic and thought-provoking representations of primates.