Biologists Don’t Mean to Mislead You. But, Sometimes It’s for Your Own Good.

Last week I took my son to the Shedd aquarium. It was part of his weeklong, 21st birthday celebration. We both love the aquarium.

I tend to be one of those annoying people who slow down the natural flow of visitors streaming by the exhibits because I stop to read all of the educational signage. Sorry about that.

When we got to the (really magnificent) Wild Reef exhibit, I managed to ease my way through a group of giddy youngsters and a couple of strollers so that I could read the placard about sharks. In part, it read:

 “Sharks suffer in the popular media… In reality they do not attack people very often. When they do it may be because they mistake a person for some other prey.”

That’s odd, I thought. And really kind of silly. How did this get by the research biologists who work at the Shedd?

It’s true that shark attacks on people are rare but they’re not nothing. Just in my lifetime, there’ve been about 2800 worldwide, 439 of which were fatal. Interesting, too, is the fact that the U.S. leads the world in unprovoked shark attacks. This is information I’d want to know if I went swimming off the coasts.

That other point though, really irks me. Do they really want me to believe that sharks “mistake” a person for… what, a tuna? That’s a complete misunderstanding of how animals’ brains work.

If you were in my Animal Behavior class, you would earn zero points for answering a question about why a shark attacked a swimmer by saying, “Oops, it thought she was a mackerel.”

Sharks attack people precisely because they’re perceived as prey by the shark. That’s just the fact of the matter. If a shark didn’t perceive a swimming body, dangling arm, or thrashing leg as a perfectly acceptable meal, it wouldn’t attack.

So, why this biological gaslighting? Well, the museum wants us to empathize with the sharks, and not think ill of them. It’s much like the ridiculous claims about animals that I heard as a kid. Remember this one: “They’re more scared of you than you are of them”? Not true. There’s a lot of animals that I’m scared of, especially the ones that kill people.

Of course, I understand the aquarium’s motivation. Estimates are that over 100 million sharks are slaughtered every year. This is driven, in great part, by the international demand for shark fins. Some people think they have magic or medicinal powers. Others just like the soup. Interestingly, according to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization, the United States imported about 600 metric tons of shark fins in 2011. I didn’t know that.

So, the gaslighting was intended to allay my fears, make me think kindly toward sharks (and the environment, I suppose), and discourage me from ordering shark fin soup. These are all worthy goals. But, I don’t like it when people try to manipulate me, even if it’s for my own good.

This is what the placard should have said, if the biologists were being honest:

• Sharks will try to eat you if they’re hungry.

• If you see a shark, get out of the water, fast.

• Don’t kill sharks. They are important members of the ecosystem.

• Don’t order shark fin soup in a hipster restaurant.

• Shark fins won’t cure cancer and they’re not aphrodisiacs (despite what the Internet says).

So, the shark thing may seem trivial to you. Maybe it is. But it’s symptomatic of a larger problem.

For instance, recently, I attended a cocktail party with a number of other academics. I ended up standing at one of those small, round high-top tables with a few people I didn’t know. One of them said she was a neurobiologist (as am I). So, I asked about her research. She said she was a “neuro-feminist.”

“That’s interesting,” I replied, “what do you study?”

As she explained it, she believes that male and female brains aren’t really different at all, and that the major differences that develop over time are products of sociocultural influences more than biology.

Fair enough, I thought. That’s a testable hypothesis.

However, she went on to assert (quite authoritatively) that “Humans are the only animals that have hierarchies based on biology.” (She was referring to historical status differences between men and women.)

I was a taken aback by that claim. After decades of teaching Animal Behavior, I knew that it was patently false. I reminded her that biologically based hierarchies exist among insects, crustaceans, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and, of course, primates.

“Well,” she said, “those are probably just based on behavior.”

“Behavior is biology,” I noted. She stared at me for a moment, then turned around and started talking to someone else. Oh, well.

As in the case of the sharks, I understand her motivation for gaslighting the issue. What she wanted to do was convince everyone that biologically based hierarchies don’t exist in the natural world, and there are no biological differences between male and female brains. Ergo, men cannot legitimately claim that they’re superior to women. Well, the first two claims are false. The last claim is true.

This is just like claiming that sharks are really nice, so you shouldn’t kill them for soup.

But sharks aren’t really nice and you shouldn’t kill them for soup.

Male and female brains aren’t biologically identical, and you shouldn’t be a domineering chauvinist.

Make sense?

I’ve really become a bit impatient with the academic crowd. I’m tired of people misstating the science in order to get me to behave the way they want me to.

We’re all adults, here. Just tell us the truth. We can handle it.