How to Get Your Dog Out From Under the Bed

I don't like fireworks- a terrible thing to admit perhaps, but it is the truth. I don't particularly dislike them, but popping noises and coloured lights can only hold my attention for so long when it is cold, dark, raining and- at five foot three inches- I am having to constantly crane my neck to see anything.
I am not alone in my opinion- a good 90% of the canine population agrees with me, and when the 5th of November rolls round once more they will whine, bark, scratch, defecate, hide under the bed and generally make clear their dislike.
They are for the most part ignored: a survey showed that the vast majority of owners considered a fearful response to loud noises by their dogs to be normal, and would not mention it to a vet. In reality though, however amusing or exasperating your find such behaviours, living in fear is bad for your dog and you should probably take measures to help.
Traditionally two methods have been used to 'cure' dogs of their fear of loud noises- the first is systematic desensitisation through repeated exposure i.e. accustoming dogs a variety of loud noises. The problems with this approach are that it is both time consuming and labour intensive so not appropriate fpr most dog owners.
The second option is medication- benzodiazepines are often prescribed on an 'as required' basis- however, the drugs need to be administered in advance of whatever elicits the dog's fear and animal responses to such medications can vary drastically.
A third solution has now been suggested: using pheromones.
DAP, the Dog Appeasing Pheronome, was developed in France to help with separation problems in puppies and parents, and is believed to have a calming effect (it is taken from bitches after giving birth).
British vets Sheppard and Mills (2003) decided to see if its effects would help to calm dogs during fireworks displays.
Using volunteers from their surgery, they asked owners to fill in behavioural questionnaires and were interviewed regularly during the 5 week test period about behavioural changes observed. All the dogs were exposed to a minimum of four firework events, including at least one that lasted more than an hour.
The results showed that of the fourteen 'fear' behaviours identified, those thought to indicate a more intense reaction- such as continuous running, destruction of property, barking and drooling excessively were decreased with the treatment. This calmed them sufficiently in many cases to make a proper risk assessment of the situation, frequently followed by a return to normal behaviour.
The success of the study needs to be replicated of course, but it appears DAP may be the key to a peaceful fireworks night.
I wonder if it only works on dogs...

Vetinary record 2003 152: 432- 436 'Evaluation of dog-appeasing pheromone as a potential treatment for dogs fearful of fireworks' Sheppard and Mills

Who're You Gonna Call? Pschyic Ghostbusters!

Its Halloween, so gather round and I'll tell you tale so frightening it will make you... no wait, this is a science blog and we don't believe in that sort of thing. Instead for this night of ghouls and ghosties I shall offer some reassurance: neuroscientists say there are NO SUCH THING AS GHOSTS- and they have the data to prove it.
The occurrence and frequency of paranormal experiences seem to be associated with altered levels of activity in the the temporal lobe of the brain and some people's temporal lobes are more sensitive than others. The key to it all seems to be global geomagnetic activity (and no I don't know what that is either)- it has been emprirically associated with reports of seeing dead relatives soon after they have,well... died.
It also explains why its the things that go bump in the night that scare us- disruption of normal sleeping patterns seems to be a key element in the witnessing of apparitions and the majority of paranormal experiences occur between 2:00 and 4:00am.
These clever neuroscientists (specifically Persinger and crew) worked out that only specific complex magnetic fields interfered with the temporal lobe and then went a bit Frankenstein and decided to see if they could recreate the resulting experiences by subjecting people to such a magnetic field. When they tried it they found that most normal people experienced a 'sensed presence', feeling interact with their thinking and move in space.
Persinger et al. however are not only ghost-makers but also ghostBUSTERS, solving the problems of people who 'see dead people.' One example given was of a teenage girl who thought she was chosen because she had seen and experienced an apparition and sensed the outline of a baby over her left shoulder. The experiences usually occurred between 2:00 and 4:00am and her medical records showed a frontal injury in childhood.
The psychic ghostbusters measured the magnetism in her bedroom and discovered the existence of a pulsed magnetic field similar to the one they used to create apparitions. Turns out it was coming from her alarm clock, which was too close to the head of her bed and was disrupting her sleep- and leading to her 'visions'.
By now, I expect you are sitting back and breathing a sigh of relief, maybe even thinking of going to sleep without your nightlight. However, Persinger et al. have one last spooky surprise up their sleeve: not content with their own creations, they decided to test two well-known psychics- medium and a remote viewer. Complex tests were set up for both and in each case, the psychic seemed to know things that they shouldn't be able to. Also when engaged in the tests, their brains showed activity patterns that were anomalous for the situations... outside help perhaps?
So it appears even the rigourous neuroscientist ghostbusters cannot completely disprove the existence of the paranormal.
The truth...is out there.

Wear your 'Halo' to Work

The recession may officially be over, but its never been harder to get a job. So what should you be relying on to get you chosen over the hundreds of other eager applicants? Qualifications, work experience, extra skills… or a nice smile?
Unfair though it may seem to those of us not so fortunate as to be absolutely gorgeous, studies have shown that good looking people tend to be more highly rated in interview than their less attractive peers. This isn’t a case of sexism in the workplace- the phenomenon occurs for both men and women- nor does it appear to be due to the overt shallowness of the interviewer as the prejudice is seemingly subconscious.
According to psychologists this bias is due to the ‘Halo Effect,’ a psychological kink by which we attribute positive characteristics to people we like and negative ones to people we like less. When the person or people are strangers to us, the tendency is to assume good looking people are nice and less attractive people are not. A reliance on appearance for judging character is inherent in our culture- phrases such as ‘love is blind’ and ‘a face only a mother could love’ reveal how we connect positive emotions to an attractive physical appearance.
A study conducted in the 70’s by Landy and Sigall shows the Halo effect in action: when male students were asked to evaluate the quality of an essay, the marks they gave when they thought the writer was an attractive woman were substantially higher than when the perceived writer was unattractive.
Of course to a certain extent notions of attractiveness are subjective to personal preference and social conditioning; however the experimental proof of the halo effect seems to indicate that there is some base level of attractiveness- traits such as good hygiene and fitness, personal grooming etc. will influence people’s judgement regardless of what attracts them personally. This effect does not just condition what people think of your personality but also your abilities and skills- people will assume that attractive people (within reason obviously looking like Paris Hilton might be a hindrance) are more capable as well as generally nicer.
So what does this mean in the real world? Well realistically looks are unlikely to replace the right qualifications-you’ll need those to get into the interview room anyway. However once you’re at that stage- even if it seems chauvinistic or unfeminist- its up to you to use every weapon in your arsenal. So dress well, use makeup, get your hair done- at the end of the day it could be the difference between going home with a new job or going back to fill in another round of applications.

The Halo effect: evidence for unconscious alteration of judgements Nisbett et al. J of Personality and social psychology vol 35 no. 4 pg 250

The Winning Streak

Ever wondered why some guys seem to be natural winners, blessed with that elusive stroke of luck- the winning streak? Is it luck, the random hand of fate or do they have something that others don’t?
Emerging evidence suggests that something much more solid than luck is responsible: increasingly it seems that your testosterone levels could affect your success in competition.
This is nothing new: scientists have known for years that one of the main roles of testosterone in the male body is to induce reckless and competitive behaviour in hopes of increasing your chances of attracting a mate.
All men have a basic, consistent level of testosterone that follows a daily rhythm- spiking in the morning (hence ‘morning wood’) and then steadily decreasing during the day. However, if you engage in competition of some sort, the increase in testosterone production that results can temporarily override the decline.
Unfortunately, even discounting these increases some men simply have higher testosterone levels than others. This is to some extent dependent on your circumstances – for example married men with children have significantly lower levels than unattached men ‘on the pull’- however some research using primates indicates it may be possible to predict rank from birth testosterone levels, suggesting leaders are born not made.
But what, if anything, does this have to do with winning?
In primate societies leaders arise through continued success in competition- both sexes favour winners as mates and alliance partners- and it seems humans are no different: research on partner choice in women shows a preference for higher levels of testosterone.
In terms of winning, two key facts to remember are that increased testosterone increases your chance of winning and that winning boosts your testosterone levels. Theoretically this means that success in one competition followed by participation in another will increase your chances of winning in the short term and this seems to some extent to be true in practice although of course there are many confounding factors.
Even if you’re not particularly competitive or sporty you can benefit from this effect: a recent study indicates that men may gain testosterone boosts from watching their favourite sports team win, even if they are just watching the game on television in a bar. Similar studies have shown that this effect can be produced by engaging in nonphysical activities as well- including chess and board games.
The winning streak then, may have more truth to it than has previously been thought and its effects should be remembered next time you hit the pitch, bar or chessboard.

Valentines day, lapdancers and doing it all in the name of science

Well, the fateful day is here again- Valentines day in all its sexed-up, loved-up, tacky glory. Rather than regale you with the 'love myth', seratonin levels, phenethylamine, animals that mate for life or depressing suicide statistics, I have chosen to offer a study which could help those of the single persuasion improve their chances for next year- or at least give them a good laugh. In 2007, Geoffrey Miler, Joshua Tybur and Brent Jordan published the provocatively titled "Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earning by lap dancers: economic evidence for human estrus?" Their chief aim is to disprove the standing theory that estrus- a phase of increased female receptivity, proceptivity, selectivity and attractiveness at the fertile peak of the menstrual cycle- has become hidden in humans: "to promote males provisioning and paternal care in long term bonded relationships" (translation: women got good at faking it so that they could get the best genes from the good looking bastards and and a safe relationship with a nice guy). Miller and co decided that lap dancing clubs were the best place to evaluate this because men can thoroughly 'evaluate' a number of women and because women can continue to perform during menstruation- leading to this gem of a quote "Dancers in these clubs perform topless but not bottomless; law requires them to wear underwear."
Their sample size consisted of 18 women who they used to test the hypothesis that dancers not on the pill would show an increase in earnings during the fertile phases compared to other phases and women on the pill.
They found that earnings for women increased significantly during estrus and dipped during menstruation if they were not on the pill but that no similar peak was observed in women on the pill (although they still earned less in the menstrual phase). The implication is, of course, that men can still subconsciously detect estrus and menstruation in females.
For those of you that have been convinced by this research, I can only advise sticking your menstrual cycle in your diary and planning dates and evenings out accordingly- anything that will automatically increase your attractiveness without involving large amounts of pain, time, effort or money is worth giving a go. For those less convinced I reccommend reading the article anyway- if only for the pleasure of reading a scientific description of what goes on in a lapdancing club.
The researchers indicate a desire to investigate this effect in other avenues of the sex trade. All in the name of science no doubt.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T6H-4PS640T-4&_user=1495569&_coverDate=11%2F30%2F2007&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1207468654&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000053194&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1495569&md5=8487da4918e600bab31ed9b6f2a88f08

A little Knowledge is a Dangerous Thing

We live in an age of information: the accumulated knowledge of our entire species’ history lies at our fingertips whenever we log on to the internet and it is no more difficult to find out what is going on in Chinese politics than it is to discover what happened at the last local council meeting. By rights we should be the most well-informed generation in history; the newspapers are full of information on political affairs, scientific research, economic developments and world news. Such information is no longer restricted to experts or those ‘in the know’ but freely available to the whole population. At first glance this seems like it can only be a good thing- people have a right to know what is going on and what their taxes are paying for, however it is arguable that the influence of modern media is currently more at odds with these rights than facilitating them. Global warming, swine flu, genetics, GM foods and stem cell research are all hugely important issues for our time but research and development is being blocked by the power of people extrapolating massively from the small amount information they understand, often with potentially dangerous consequences.
The big panic of 2009 was Swine Flu: a potentially deadly new virus that hit world headlines at around April and stayed there. From the start the press was full of death statistics and scare headlines- the sun lead one week with a story about the graveyards running out of space while the Daily Mail went with “Could Britain cope with a pandemic? Lack of preparation ‘could leave a million dead.’” The threat was real, but did it necessitate this kind of hysteria? It would appear not given the relative insignificance of the Swine flu ‘pandemic’ however, reporting like this pressured the National Health Service into sinking a substantial amount of money into stockpiling the vaccine. Now, the paper’s are decrying the waste of buying such a large amount of vaccinations and accusing the government of caving to pressure from the Drug Companies, when in fact it was most likely the panic-inducing media reports that caused the situation.
Media does not just influence the actions of those who should no better however, but also the minds of those who don’t; one clear example of this was the publication of ‘The God Gene’ a book by Dean Hamer that was picked up by the media at the time, most notably making the cover of Time Magazine in October 2004. Hamer, a geneticist, argues for genetic explanation to morality and religious belief, which is as fair a hypothesis as any, however although I have not read the book I cannot imagine that he is referring to a single gene controlling such a trait. Such traits, if they are indeed influenced by genetics, will be quantitative not mendelian, and since studies into the genetics of well-documented physiological traits such as height and obesity have so far only been able to determine genetic loci accounting for about 1% of overall variation, it is extremely unlikely that Hamer has documented demonstrable genetic additive effects for a cultural phenomenon. Unfortunately the complexities of such research appear to be lost on the media- who latched onto the idea of a gene for religion wholeheartedly. This sort of publicity is neither accurate nor useful especially in the current ‘battle’ against creationism, as it gives people an erroneous picture of the research which when (unsurprisingly) is proven to be false, reinforces people’s mistrust of science.
A similar situation exists with global warming, a topic whose intricacies are so vast that it would be impossible to address them here. Many papers are doing their bit to help things but others- principally the ultra right wing ones that would make Sarah Palin’s breakfast table (this being a woman who believes global warming is a scientific conspiracy though god knows to what end)- tell a different story. My personal favourite was another headline by the Daily Mail that wanted to know how Scientists can continue to talk about Global warming when we’ve had more snow this year than ever before. Can reporters really get away with doing this little research? Did their editor, someone who is supposed to pretend to some level of intelligence, not take them aside and explain gently the issues of glacial melt, currents and how global warming is the name not necessarily the description? Apparently they can, a turn of events that has given me very little faith in the science journalism of the current media. They are more interested in sensationalism than informing people on important issues and if global warming does reach us earlier than expected I will be the first to push the staff of the daily mail off of Cornwall to make more room for the rest of us.
If the media has too much influence over these issues, it is ably assisted by our belief in political celebrities, one case in point being Prince Charles and genetically modified foods. Genetically modified foods have the potential to solve world food shortages, and as we run out of space and climate becomes more unstable, they may provide the only solution. In an interview in the Telegraph however, he accused firms of conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong".
There are many amusing soundbites from this article, in which Prince Charles seems to think all gm foods look like something out of Little Shop of Horrors however it is the final paragraph that seems to me to be the most significant “Scientists claim the repeated attacks on their trials are stifling vital research to evaluate whether GM crops can reduce the cost and environmental impact of farming and whether they will grow better in harsh environments where droughts have devastated harvests.” Prince Charles’ view of the global agricultural situation just isn’t feasible any longer- his emphasis on the small farmer might seem idyllic but there isn’t enough land to support it and crops are going to need to adapt to changing conditions more quickly than currently seems likely. His very public dismissal of the value of research into genetically modified foods is doing a lot of harm.
Similar themes of scientists ‘playing God’ are what led to George Bush banning stem cell research in America despite the good it can do for people

(Wikipedia)
Many diseases could be cured by Stem cell research and while I would not want to devalue the pro-life argument, which does make some valid points, the good such research could do means that, like organ transplantation and blood donation, it should be optional. It is certainly not something that should be banned just to get the support of the bible belt in an upcoming election.
So has the media become a negative force, working against scientists? In many ways clearly the answer is a resounding yes- particularly in the newspapers. Selling papers is ultimately about sensationalism and sadly, most journalists are motivated by sales not a desire to inform people. However it is not all bad- campaigns about issues such as Breast Cancer and the HPV vaccination have been ably assisted by journalists from all spheres and dedicated science magazines such as the New Scientist, present the days issues with a minimum of drama. There is still the potential for science journalism to work alongside the field it targets and not against it, but the social attitude to science is going to be a big factor and until more figures like Barack Obama come out in favour of the big issues, science in the media is always going to remain contentious.
(To be Published in Triple Helix)

A diet that works?

The obesity crisis is becoming yet another defining problem of our society, however unlike global warming and the AIDS epidemic, researchers and politicians are in this instance largely focused on saving the nation's children- presumably they assume its too late for the rest of us. It must be admitted, they do have a point- after all ,if Whitney Houston is to be believed, 'the children are our future'- and no-one really wants the human race of the future to be spherical balls of adipose tissue rather than super-intelligent cybernetic hybrids, do they?
Increasingly research into the 'obesity epidemic' is turning up more and more genetic components to weight gain, however it is important to note (because a failure to do so would be to enrage geneticists everywhere) that most of these 'fat' genes are not little switches: they might increase your risk of obesity or diabetes but your lifestyle is still the main causative factor (many loci influencing such traits account for less than 1% of variation).
One of the more interesting areas of this research is investigating the importance of eating rate in weight gain and the degree to which it is heritable. It is generally accepted that there is a positive correlation between eating rate and the amount of food consumed- a statement that led to my grandmother winning a long-term argument to the effect that eating slowly would make me lose weight- it seems, frustratingly, that once again she was right.
One study by Llewellyn et al. published in 2008, examined this correlation by filming 254 pairs of twins aged 10-12 eating a normal meal at home, then analysing the footage to identify eating rate and quantity eaten. The children were classed as obese, overweight, higher normal weight and lower normal weight and all were given more food than they could eat.
The results showed that the more overweight the child was, the faster they ate and, in addition, that the lower normal weight group ate significantly less than the obese or overweight groups. They also found a higher correlation of eating rate in eating rate between identical twins than there were between non-identical (fraternal) twins- results consistent with strong evidence for a genetic component.
Despite this evidence of heritability however, the study urged that early promotion of slower eating for children could lower the mean population weight and help control obesity, even citing a study in which it was found that simply encouraging children to put their knife and fork down between bites succeeded in both slowing eating rate and reducing the amount of food eaten over a six month period.
So for once it seems the older generation has the right of it: sitting down to dinner at the table and not bolting your food can benefit families- not because their children will become better mannered but because they'll significantly reduce their food bill.
So have geneticists unwittingly found a diet that works? I say its worth a try- after all its got to be better than eating half a grapefruit

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/88/6/1560