41We know that a typical infant will instinctively gaze into its mother’s eyes, and she will look back. This mutual gaze is a major part of the attachment between mother and child. In adulthood, looking at someone else in a pleasant way can be a complimentary sign of paying attention. It can catch someone’s attention in a crowded room. “Eye contact and smile” can signal availability and confidence, a common-sense notion supported in studies by psychologist Monica Moore.

42Neuroscientist Bonnie Auyeung found that the hormone oxytocin increased the amount of eye contact from men toward the interviewer during a brief interview when the direction of their gaze was recorded. This was also found in high-functioning men with some autistic spectrum symptoms, who may tend to avoid eye contact. Specific brain regions that respond during direct gaze are being explored by other researchers, using advanced methods of brain scanning.

43With the use of eye-tracking technology, Julia Minson of the Harvard Kennedy School of Government concluded that eye contact can signal very different kinds of messages, depending on the situation. While eye contact may be a sign of connection or trust in friendly situations, it’s more likely to be associated with dominance or intimidation in adversarial situations. “Whether you’re a politician or a parent, it might be helpful to keep in mind that trying to maintain eye contact may backfire if you’re trying to convince someone who has a different set of beliefs than you,” said Minson.

44When we look at a face or a picture, our eyes pause on one spot at a time, often on the eyes or mouth. These pauses typically occur at about three per second, and the eyes then jump to another spot, until several important points in the image are registered like a series of snapshots. How the whole image is then assembled and perceived is still a mystery although it is the subject of current research.

45In people who score high in a test of neuroticism, a personality dimension associated with self-consciousness and anxiety, eye contact triggered more activity associated with avoidance, according to the Finnish researcher Jari Hietanen and colleagues. “Our findings indicate that people do not only feel different when they are the centre of attention but that their brain reactions also differ.” A more direct finding is that people who scored highly for negative emotions like anxiety looked at others for shorter periods of time and reported more comfortable feelings when others did not look directly at them.

41Teri Byrd: I was a zoo and wildlife park employee for years. Both the wildlife park and zoo claimed to be operating for the benefit of the animals and for conservation purposes. This claim was false. Neither one of them actually participated in any contributions to animal research or conservation. They are profitable institutions whose bottom line is much more important than the condition of the animals. Animals despise being captives in zoos. No matter how you “enhance” enclosures, they do not allow for freedom, a natural diet or adequate exercise. Animals end up stressed and unhealthy or dead. It’s past time for transparency with these institutions, and it’s past time to eliminate zoos from our culture.

42Karen R. Sime: As a zoology professor, I agree with Emma Marris that zoo displays can be sad and cruel. But she underestimates the educational value of zoos. The zoology program at my university attracts students for whom zoo visits were the crucial formative experience that led them to major in biological sciences. These are mostly students who had no opportunity as children to travel to wilderness areas, wildlife refuges or national parks. Although good TV shows can help stir children’s interest in conservation, they cannot replace the excitement of a zoo visit as an intense, immersive and interactive experience. Surely there must be some middle ground that balances zoos’ treatment of animals with their educational potential.

43Greg Newberry: Emma Marris’s article is an insult and a disservice to the thousands of passionate, dedicated people who work tirelessly to improve the lives of animals and protect our planet. She uses outdated research and decades-old examples to undermine the noble mission of organizations committed to connecting children to a world beyond their own. Zoos are at the forefront of conservation and constantly evolving to improve how they care for animals and protect each species in its natural habitat. Are there tragedies? Of course. But they are the exception, not the norm that Ms. Marris implies. A distressed animal in a zoo will get as good or better treatment than most of us at our local hospital.

44Dean Gallea: As a fellow environmentalist, animal-protection advocate and longtime vegetarian, I could properly be in the same camp as Emma Marris on the issue of zoos. But I believe that well-run zoos, and the heroic animals that suffer their captivity, do serve a higher purpose. Were it not for opportunities to observe these beautiful, wild creatures close to home, many more people would be driven by their fascination to travel to wild areas to seek out, disturb and even hunt them down. Zoos are, in that sense, similar to natural history and archeology museums, serving to satisfy our need for contact with these living creatures while leaving the vast majority undisturbed in their natural environments.

45John Fraser: Emma Marris selectively describes and misrepresents the findings of our research. Our studies focused on the impact of zoo experiences on how people think about themselves and nature, and the data points extracted from our studies do not, in any way, discount what is learned in a zoo visit. Zoos are tools for thinking. Our research provides strong support for the value of zoos in connecting people with animals and with nature. Zoos provide a critical voice for conservation and environmental protection. They afford an opportunity for people from all backgrounds to encounter a range of animals, from drone bees to springbok or salmon, to better understand the natural world we live in.

41Hannah: Simply, there are people in Nigeria who cannot travel to the Smithsonian Institution to see that part of their history and culture represented by the Benin Bronzes. These should be available to them as part of their cultural heritage and history and as a source of national pride. There is no good reason that these artifacts should be beyond the ordinary reach of the educational objectives or inspiration of the generations to which they were left. They serve no purpose in a museum in the United States or elsewhere except as curious objects. They cannot be compared to works of art produced for sale which can be passed from hand to hand and place to place by purchase.

42Buck: We know very exact reproductions of artwork can be and are regularly produced. Perhaps museums and governments might explore some role for the use of nearly exact reproductions as a means of resolving issues relating to returning works of art and antiquities. The context of any exhibit is more important to me than whether the object being displayed is 2000 years old or 2 months old. In many cases the experts have a hard time agreeing on what is the real object and what is a forgery. Again, the story an exhibit is trying to tell is what matters. The monetary value of the objects on display is a distant second place in importance.

43Sara: When visiting the Baltimore Museum of Art, I came across a magnificent 15th-century Chinese sculpture. It inspired me to learn more about the culture that it represented. Artifacts in museums have the power to inspire, and perhaps spark that need to learn and understand the nature of their creators. Having said that, I do feel that whatever artifacts find their way to public museums should, in fact, be sanctioned as having been obtained on loan, legally purchased, or obtained by treaty. Stealing artifacts from other peoples’ cultures is obscene; it robs not only the physical objects, but the dignity and spirit of their creators.

44Victor: Ancient art that is displayed in foreign countries by all means should be returned to the original country. The foreign countries have no right to hold back returning the items. I would ask that the foreign nations and the original country discuss the terms of transfer. Yes, there is the risk that the original country will not have as good security as do the foreign countries. But look at what happened to Boston’s Gardner Museum theft in 1990, including the loss of Rembrandt, Vermeer, Manet, and other masterpieces. Nothing is absolutely safe, nowhere. And now Climate Change agitators are attacking publicly displayed works in European museums.

45Julia: To those of you in the comments section who are having strong feelings about artifacts being removed from cities in the US and Britain and returned to their countries of origin, I would ask you to consider: why do you think Americans have more of a right to easily access the Benin Bronzes than the people of Nigeria? Why are people who live within a day’s drive of London entitled to go and see the Elgin Marbles whenever they want, but the people of Athens aren’t? What intrinsic factors make the West a suitable home for these artifacts but preclude them from being preserved and displayed by their countries of origin? If your conclusion is that the West is better able to preserve these artifacts, think about why you’re assuming that to be true.