by One of the greatest privileges of being a chief scientist is spending time in remote locations with monkeys and apes, living close to these animals in their habitats and experiencing their daily lives. As a 21st century human being, I am immediately tempted to take pictures of these encounters and share them on social media.
Social media can help scientists raise awareness of the species we study, promote their conservation and secure jobs and research funding. However, sharing images of wild animals online can contribute to illegal animal trafficking and harmful human-wildlife interactions. For endangered or threatened species, this attention can put them at further risk.
My research aims to find ways for scientists and conservationists to harness the power of social media and avoid its pitfalls. My colleague, ecologist and science communicator Cathryn Freund, and I think we have some answers. In our opinion, wildlife professionals should not include themselves in pictures with animals. We also believe that infant humans and animals interacting with humans lead viewers to think about these creatures in ways that are counterproductive to conservation.
Show and tell?
Many conservation biologists are thinking hard about the role social media can and should play in their work. For example, the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s Section on Human-Primate Interactions has issued guidelines on how to use images of wild primates and how to conduct primate-watching tours.
These guidelines recommend that when scientists show photos of themselves with wild primates, the caption should state that the person in the image is a trained researcher or conservationist. However, there is little data to assess whether this approach is effective.
We wanted to test whether people actually read these captions and whether informative captions helped curb the viewer’s desire to have a similar experience or keep the animal as a pet.
In a study published in 2023, my colleagues and I created two fake Instagram posts – one showing a person next to a wild gorilla, the other pointing to a gloved human hand holding a slender loris – a small lemurlike primate native to the Southeast Asia. Half of these photos had basic captions such as “Me with a mountain gorilla” or “Me with my research subject”; The other half included more detailed captions that also said, “All animals are observed” (gorilla) or “Caught and handled (loris) safely and humanely for research with the proper permits and training.”
We showed over 3,000 adults one of these fake Instagram posts and asked them to complete a survey. The results surprised us.
Viewers who saw the Instagram posts with the more detailed caption recognized that the picture showed research. But regardless of the subtitle, more than half of the audience agreed or strongly agreed that they would like to seek an experience similar to the loris or the gorilla.
Over half of the audience agreed or strongly agreed that they would like these animals as pets and that the animals would make good pets. It is likely that the participants did not know anything about the animals’ habits, behavior or survival needs, or that neither of these two species is at all suitable as a pet.
Why media influence matters
While these responses may be sentimental or naive, research shows that mass media – especially social media – contributes to harmful human encounters with wildlife and the exotic pet trade.
For example, the illegal trade of owls in Indonesia increased sharply due to the Harry Potter films and books, in which owls were magical creatures used by wizards. The owls were once known collectively as “Burung Hantu,” or “bird ghost,” but now in the country’s bird markets they are commonly known as “Burung Harry Potter.”
Studies show that images of people with lorises lead to illegal catches and sales of lorises and other primates. Owners then post additional videos showing them handling the animals inappropriately – for example, tickling the loris, causing it to raise its arms. Onlookers see this behavior as cute, but in reality the animals do this to activate toxic glands in their upper arms and to transfer venom to their mouths in preparation to defend themselves.
In earlier research, we found that when YouTube videos in orangutan rescue and rehabilitation centers feature baby orangutans and people interacting with orangutans, these posts received more views than videos of orangutans or adult orangutans that do not interact with people. However, people who watched videos showing baby orangutans, or people interacting with the animals, posted comments that were less supportive of orangutan conservation. They also said more often that they wanted to own orangutans as pets or interact with them.
Many people who seek contact with wildlife are unaware of the harm these experiences cause. Animals can transmit disease to humans, but it also works the other way around: Humans can transmit potentially fatal diseases to wild animals, including measles, herpes viruses and flu viruses.
When people move through an animal’s habitat – or worse, handle or chase the animal – it causes stress reactions and changes the animal’s behavior. Animals may avoid feeding sites or spend time and energy fleeing instead of foraging.
Keeping wild animals as pets is even more problematic. I have worked with several rescue and rehabilitation centers that shelter orangutans that were previously kept as pets or tourist attractions. These animals are usually in poor health and have to be taught how to socialize, move through trees and find their own food, since these natural behaviors have been removed from them.
The last thing a responsible conservation biologist studying endangered species wants to do is encourage this type of human-wildlife contact.
Comment rather than share
Many well-meaning researchers and conservationists, as well as members of the public, have posted images of themselves next to wild animals on social media. I did it too, before I realized the consequences.
Our results show that caption information is not enough to keep people from seeking out animal encounters. As we see it, the answer for researchers is to stop taking these pictures and sharing them with the general public.
When scientists create posts, we recommend choosing images that show only wildlife, in as natural a context as possible, or just people in the field – not both. Researchers, conservationists and the public can go back through their social media history and delete or crop images that show human-wildlife interaction.
Scientists can also contact people who post images of humans interacting with wild animals, explain why the images can be harmful and recommend that they be reduced. Leading by example and sharing this information are simple actions that can save animal lives.
Cathryn Freund, director of science communications at the Phillip and Patricia Frost Museum of Science in Miami, contributed to this article.
This article is republished from The Conversation, a non-profit, independent news organization that brings you facts and analysis to help you make sense of our complex world.
Written by: Andrea l. DiGiorgio, Princeton University.
Read more:
Andrew l. DiGiorgio has received funding from the National Science Foundation and Princeton University. She is a participating member of the IUCN SSC Primate Specialist Group Section on Human-Primate Interactions.
