Study Finds Nonhuman Primates Can Imagine Objects
A groundbreaking new study published in the journal Science offers compelling evidence that a nonhuman primate can mentally represent objects that are not physically present.
The article, titled “Evidence for representation of pretend objects by Kanzi, a language-trained bonobo,” was authored by Amalia P. M. Bastos and Christopher Krupenye and recently highlighted in the Brooks Institute for Animal Rights Law & Policy Animal Law Digest.
At the center of the research is Kanzi, a lexigram-trained bonobo who has long been recognized for his language comprehension abilities. This new study adds something remarkable to our understanding of his cognition: evidence that he can engage in pretense.
What Did the Study Show?
Across three experiments, researchers tested whether Kanzi could identify the location of pretend objects, such as “juice” that was poured between empty containers when prompted verbally.
In carefully structured interactions, researchers:
Used verbal cues referring to objects that were not actually present
Acted out scaffolded pretend scenarios
Asked Kanzi to indicate where the imaginary object was located
Kanzi successfully identified the correct location of the “pretend” object across multiple trials.
This suggests that he was not merely reacting to physical cues, but was instead forming a mental representation of something that did not exist in the immediate environment.
Implications for Animal Law and Policy
For those of us working in animal advocacy and policy, findings like this matter.
Legal systems often rely, implicitly or explicitly, on assumptions about cognitive differences between humans and other animals. Demonstrating that a bonobo can mentally represent imaginary objects challenges simplistic narratives about animal intelligence and sentience.
As scientific research continues to illuminate the mental lives of nonhuman animals, it raises important questions:
How should cognitive sophistication factor into legal protections?
Do existing welfare frameworks adequately reflect what we now know about animal minds?
Should evidence of symbolic thought influence how animals are treated in captivity, research, or entertainment settings?
The work highlighted by the Brooks Institute underscores a broader trend in animal law: science and policy are increasingly intertwined.
A Stark Policy Contrast
At the same time that research is expanding our understanding of the intelligence and emotional complexity of nonhuman primates, federal policy is moving in a very different direction.
H.R. 7148, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, recently signed into law, includes $30 million in funding to expand primate research infrastructure.
This funding supports facilities and systems that house and utilize primates in biomedical and behavioral research. The contrast is difficult to ignore.
On one hand, peer-reviewed science is demonstrating that bonobos like Kanzi can imagine, represent absent objects, and engage in forms of symbolic cognition once believed to be uniquely human. On the other, public funding is being directed toward expanding the infrastructure that uses similarly intelligent and sensitive animals as research subjects.
If primates are capable of representational thought, imagination, and complex social cognition, what ethical weight should that carry in decisions about confinement, experimentation, and laboratory use?
Expanding Our Understanding
Kanzi’s performance does not simply showcase an extraordinary individual, it invites a broader reevaluation of the cognitive capacities of nonhuman primates.
As research progresses, we are reminded that imagination, symbolic thought, and representational understanding may not be uniquely human traits. Instead, they may exist along a continuum, one that includes other species with whom we share evolutionary history.
For advocates, scholars, and policymakers alike, this study offers both scientific insight and ethical reflection. The more we understand about animal cognition, the harder it becomes to ignore the implications for how we structure laws, protections, and societal norms.
What You Can Do
1. Help OAA advocate for humane alternatives to testing on animals by submitting one (or all) of the following Action Alerts:
2. Review our Animal Testing advocacy pages for more resources.
3. Sign up for our newsletter to receive OAA alerts and updates about other news and action alerts delivered straight to your inbox.
