Apparently Toxoplasma is well known to pregnant women. It's some sort of parasite, found in cat feces, that if given the chance at a fetus will wreak havoc with the nervous system. So pregnant women are supposed to avoid cats and their feces in particular. First I've ever heard of it. Although I guess now certain people have legitimate reasons for requiring me to keep cats out of my household...
Anyway, toxo normally functions in a life cycle between cats and rats. Toxo can only reproduce in cat stomachs, so they hitch on to rats and make the rats lose their aversion to the smell of cat urine, which causes rats to head on over to cat smells and become dinner in no time at all. Providing, of course, a route for the parasite into the cat stomach for all the reproduction that could be imagined.
Amazingly, Dr. Robert Sapolsky of - guess where - has found that in toxo-infected rats, everything else functions normally. They still maintain their other normal fears of open space; they basically function absolutely normally except for suddenly being attracted to cat urine. So the parasite targets precisely this one function - and scientists would love to have the targeting precision.
Turns out that toxo migrates to the rat brain and goes latent, but in the amygdala, which controls fear and anxiety, it causes neurons to atrophy and disconnects fear circuits. It blunts the stress related to cat odor. It actually switches the response to cat urine from fear to sexual arousal, increasing testosterone in male cats. Female cats actually prefer toxo-infected males, presumably because of the elevated testosterone.
What does toxo do to humans? Well aside from fetuses, it was assumed that it doesn't do much because it goes latent. However, one study showed that males show a slight disinhibition related to neuropsychological tasks of impulse control. And two indpendent studies found that toxo-infected humans are two to four times more likely to die in car accidents related to speeding. Apparently, the disinhibition leads to more reckless behavior. However, those 3 studies are the only ones in existence related to toxo's effect in humans.
What is the take away? Apparently, according to Sapolsky, who incidentally got lost on the Caltrain on the way to speak this morning even though he is actually a Stanford professor and the meeting was at Stanford, parasites are really cool. And, even if thousands of neuroscientists study processes such as this, a parasite will still know more than they do. Makes you wanna go hmmm.
Monday, October 27, 2008
New Horizons in Science: Frinky Science
This term, I swear, has been coined by the researcher himself, Dr. Baba Shiv, also of Stanford. (Can you guess who was hosting this conference?) Think of freaky and funky rolled together. I'm not sure where the "i" comes from, now that I think about it. Anyway, Shiv teaches marketing in the Graduate School of Business, but he has also become involved with neuroscience. He likes to come up with unusual theories and explanations. Hence, frinky, I guess.
The first study Shiv discussed relates to the current financial crisis. He designed an experiment where a participant is given 20 $1 bills. Each round, the player can invest $1 or pass. 50% of the time, the investment will result in $1 loss, and 50% of the time, the investment will result in a $2.50 win, or a gain of $1.50. So what is the optimal solution? Well, to invest 100% of the time of course. Shiv says most participants recognize this and will start the game at the 100% level. However, every time a player loses, the emotional experience in the brain creates negativity. This overwhelms any positive emotion. Slowly, participants' emotions "hijack the cognitive brain." Emotions cause a person to stop investing even though they know they should. Hence, part of the problem with our financial crisis. In a related note, lots of wins increases positive emotion which can lead to greed...
In another study, Shiv exposes a price placebo effect. We've all heard about the placebo effect in medicine, where patients get better when fed a sugar pill, probably because they believe it is a real pill. Well it turns out that when the sugar pill is more expensive, the effect is even stronger. In a study that won an Ignoble Prize, Shiv's research group showed that at least 60% of people in a study who were fed sugar pills and told they were pain killers said they had pain reduction. But 84% of people who received the "pain killers" at full market price had pain reduction. The others had received the "pain killers" at an enormous discount. Related studies also show that people like wine better when they are told it is $90 than when they are told it is $5. Even when it's the exact same wine.
Shockingly enough, not only do people report less pain and better taste with "expensive" products, they also actually experience less pain and actually prefer the expensive wine, as shown through fMRI. Some people speculated that this effect would not work with "real," objective diseases. In other words, cholesterol-lowering drugs or antibiotics would not be subject to this effect because the diseases they treat are not subjective as is pain.
However, Shiv believes, and is currently attempting to verify through research, that this is not the case. Here's why.
The research has shown that predicted utility influences experienced utility. Americans tend to associate low price with low quality. So the region in the brain that deals with pleasure prediction, the striatum, will send less dopamine to the region that actually encodes pleasure if the product is cheaper. Although the biophysical pleasure may actually be the same with cheaper and more expensive versions, the strong connection between the pleasure predictor and the pleasure encoder decreases the overall pleasure experience.
Even more interesting, low reward prediction caused by low price can actually lead to stress and the production of cortisol, which shuts of repair mechanisms in the body to focus on some perceived threat. Shiv believes this cascade of events will also make the price placebo effect very real for even antibiotics. He encourages doctors that when they prescribe a generic, they should make sure to tell their patients from their position of authority that the generic will be just as effective as the brand name. He thinks that this may help to reduce the price placebo effect. (I sure hope that my brain isn't telling my body that my generic birth control pills suck...)
My favorite study was the IKEA fruits of labor study. First Shiv discovered that products that come in hard to open packages are returned less frequently. Then he discovered that if someone else assembles your IKEA furniture for you, you are less willing to give it up. If you do it yourself, you actually like the furniture better.
Finally, someone has explained my non-rational attachment to my IKEA dining set, which was assebled painstakingly slowly by yours truly!
So what are the implications of all this? Shiv believes he exists to make people think in new ways. He hopes that people will use this knowledge for good, and amazingly enough, he does not do consulting! And he's a professor!
The first study Shiv discussed relates to the current financial crisis. He designed an experiment where a participant is given 20 $1 bills. Each round, the player can invest $1 or pass. 50% of the time, the investment will result in $1 loss, and 50% of the time, the investment will result in a $2.50 win, or a gain of $1.50. So what is the optimal solution? Well, to invest 100% of the time of course. Shiv says most participants recognize this and will start the game at the 100% level. However, every time a player loses, the emotional experience in the brain creates negativity. This overwhelms any positive emotion. Slowly, participants' emotions "hijack the cognitive brain." Emotions cause a person to stop investing even though they know they should. Hence, part of the problem with our financial crisis. In a related note, lots of wins increases positive emotion which can lead to greed...
In another study, Shiv exposes a price placebo effect. We've all heard about the placebo effect in medicine, where patients get better when fed a sugar pill, probably because they believe it is a real pill. Well it turns out that when the sugar pill is more expensive, the effect is even stronger. In a study that won an Ignoble Prize, Shiv's research group showed that at least 60% of people in a study who were fed sugar pills and told they were pain killers said they had pain reduction. But 84% of people who received the "pain killers" at full market price had pain reduction. The others had received the "pain killers" at an enormous discount. Related studies also show that people like wine better when they are told it is $90 than when they are told it is $5. Even when it's the exact same wine.
Shockingly enough, not only do people report less pain and better taste with "expensive" products, they also actually experience less pain and actually prefer the expensive wine, as shown through fMRI. Some people speculated that this effect would not work with "real," objective diseases. In other words, cholesterol-lowering drugs or antibiotics would not be subject to this effect because the diseases they treat are not subjective as is pain.
However, Shiv believes, and is currently attempting to verify through research, that this is not the case. Here's why.
The research has shown that predicted utility influences experienced utility. Americans tend to associate low price with low quality. So the region in the brain that deals with pleasure prediction, the striatum, will send less dopamine to the region that actually encodes pleasure if the product is cheaper. Although the biophysical pleasure may actually be the same with cheaper and more expensive versions, the strong connection between the pleasure predictor and the pleasure encoder decreases the overall pleasure experience.
Even more interesting, low reward prediction caused by low price can actually lead to stress and the production of cortisol, which shuts of repair mechanisms in the body to focus on some perceived threat. Shiv believes this cascade of events will also make the price placebo effect very real for even antibiotics. He encourages doctors that when they prescribe a generic, they should make sure to tell their patients from their position of authority that the generic will be just as effective as the brand name. He thinks that this may help to reduce the price placebo effect. (I sure hope that my brain isn't telling my body that my generic birth control pills suck...)
My favorite study was the IKEA fruits of labor study. First Shiv discovered that products that come in hard to open packages are returned less frequently. Then he discovered that if someone else assembles your IKEA furniture for you, you are less willing to give it up. If you do it yourself, you actually like the furniture better.
Finally, someone has explained my non-rational attachment to my IKEA dining set, which was assebled painstakingly slowly by yours truly!
So what are the implications of all this? Shiv believes he exists to make people think in new ways. He hopes that people will use this knowledge for good, and amazingly enough, he does not do consulting! And he's a professor!
New Horizons in Science: Light Sensitive Brains
What importance does ecological diversity have in brain science? Even tiny organisms can offer unique characteristics and properties that advance the research, and no one knows where the next discovery will come from.
For example, Dr. Karl Deisseroth of Stanford can inject a light sensitive gene obtained from a specific type of one-celled algae into an animal brain and then use optical stimulation to make different circuits in the brain switch on or off. Unlike electrical stimulation, this optical stimulation can be targeted to a very specific neuron. This is especially important in the hypothalamus, where the neurons linked to very different but important activities intermingle. This is also the area of the brain associated with many psychiatric diseases.
One such psychiatric problem is narcolepsy triggered by rewarding arousal - food and social contact, for instance. Deisseroth showed a very sad video of a dog trying to eat, but falling asleep by the time it started chewing. This problem is very debilitating in humans, and is caused by a deficit in certain receptors.
Deisseroth has used the light sensitive gene and optical stimulation to trigger a wake state in lab animals. He hopes that this might lead to therapy for narcolepsy, and that the method could be used to address other psychiatric diseases by targeting other specific neurons. However, he cautions that there are ethical and philosophical issues involved. If the hypothalamus is the area of the brain that tells us what we "want," how much can we change what we want? Is "want" defined only neurologically?
For example, Dr. Karl Deisseroth of Stanford can inject a light sensitive gene obtained from a specific type of one-celled algae into an animal brain and then use optical stimulation to make different circuits in the brain switch on or off. Unlike electrical stimulation, this optical stimulation can be targeted to a very specific neuron. This is especially important in the hypothalamus, where the neurons linked to very different but important activities intermingle. This is also the area of the brain associated with many psychiatric diseases.
One such psychiatric problem is narcolepsy triggered by rewarding arousal - food and social contact, for instance. Deisseroth showed a very sad video of a dog trying to eat, but falling asleep by the time it started chewing. This problem is very debilitating in humans, and is caused by a deficit in certain receptors.
Deisseroth has used the light sensitive gene and optical stimulation to trigger a wake state in lab animals. He hopes that this might lead to therapy for narcolepsy, and that the method could be used to address other psychiatric diseases by targeting other specific neurons. However, he cautions that there are ethical and philosophical issues involved. If the hypothalamus is the area of the brain that tells us what we "want," how much can we change what we want? Is "want" defined only neurologically?
Sunday, October 26, 2008
New Horizons in Science: Talking Machines
Here's more crazy information about the human brain, as if implicit biases weren't enough. Dr. Clifford Nass of Stanford is a professor of communication. And now I have a whole new appreciation for that subject, despite the fact that I made a lot of fun of that major while I was in school. I mean, is talking really that difficult?
Nass went through a whirlwind of studies for us. Navigation systems can encourage safer driving if the voice is related to your emotional state. Happy people like a happy navigator, and well, misery loves company. Sad computer navigators can actually cause happy people to have more crashes.
When randomly assigned avatars and made to take math tests online, people with male avatars think they do better and actually do do better on the tests. No matter if those people are male or female. People with male avatars also try harder.
Robots can disagree with people in a productive way as long as their voices don't come from their bodies.
People would like the Microsoft Paper Clip much better and think it functioned better if it told you to send Microsoft an email when the help result wasn't useful.
Male German BMW drivers won't take direction from a female computer navigation voice.
Multi-media mulitasking involves brain function in ways that psychologists used to think was impossible. Women are better at mutitasking than men but like it less.
And the research goes on and on. It actually seems highly related to the implicit bias studies, but it is amazing how we ascribe some of these traits and biases to inanimate objects. Especially if they talk to us. Creepy.
Nass went through a whirlwind of studies for us. Navigation systems can encourage safer driving if the voice is related to your emotional state. Happy people like a happy navigator, and well, misery loves company. Sad computer navigators can actually cause happy people to have more crashes.
When randomly assigned avatars and made to take math tests online, people with male avatars think they do better and actually do do better on the tests. No matter if those people are male or female. People with male avatars also try harder.
Robots can disagree with people in a productive way as long as their voices don't come from their bodies.
People would like the Microsoft Paper Clip much better and think it functioned better if it told you to send Microsoft an email when the help result wasn't useful.
Male German BMW drivers won't take direction from a female computer navigation voice.
Multi-media mulitasking involves brain function in ways that psychologists used to think was impossible. Women are better at mutitasking than men but like it less.
And the research goes on and on. It actually seems highly related to the implicit bias studies, but it is amazing how we ascribe some of these traits and biases to inanimate objects. Especially if they talk to us. Creepy.
New Horizons in Science: Seismology
Apparently the way to identify the non-Californians in a conference is to look under the chandeliers - there won't be any Californians in that danger zone. This talk wasn't all that fascinating, but since I have been on an earthquake binge in this blog, I thought I would at least mention it.
Yes, the Bay Area is due for an earthquake. Yes, multi-story apartment buildings with garages on the bottom floor will be in real trouble. Yes, I'll probably be living in one of those.
And an organization called the 1868 Hayward Earthquake Alliance actually celebrated the fault's birthday - or rather the 140th anniversary of the last quake on the fault, which is also the average time span between major quakes on the fault. Those are some sadistic people.
And yes, at least one of the water districts in the Bay Area thinks it will take several years to get the water system back up and running. I also learned that earthquake codes (which don't apply to the ancient places we'll be living in anyway) are designed to keep people alive inside the building, but not to allow the buildings to be occupied after a quake.
So hey, mom and dad, get ready for us to move back in when our apartment falls down around us.
Yes, the Bay Area is due for an earthquake. Yes, multi-story apartment buildings with garages on the bottom floor will be in real trouble. Yes, I'll probably be living in one of those.
And an organization called the 1868 Hayward Earthquake Alliance actually celebrated the fault's birthday - or rather the 140th anniversary of the last quake on the fault, which is also the average time span between major quakes on the fault. Those are some sadistic people.
And yes, at least one of the water districts in the Bay Area thinks it will take several years to get the water system back up and running. I also learned that earthquake codes (which don't apply to the ancient places we'll be living in anyway) are designed to keep people alive inside the building, but not to allow the buildings to be occupied after a quake.
So hey, mom and dad, get ready for us to move back in when our apartment falls down around us.
New Horizons in Science: Project Implicit
Dr. Mahzarin Banaji from Hahvahd studies how people's unconscious preferences affect their social judgment. Is it possible that even though you firmly believe you are not racist or sexist, deep down inside you really are? And will that unconscious preference affect how you act in everyday life situations? Yes and yes, says Banaji.
Through conjoint analysis tests, she has discovered that people will unwittingly give up $3400 salary (out of a $35,000 to $50,000 range) to have a male boss rather than a female boss. This goes for male and female respondents, including ones who state that no way, no how, do they have a preference for men over women.
She has found that doctors who are shown to have an unconscious bias against black people through Implicit Association Tests, actually prescribe fewer clot-busting drugs to their black patients than to their white patients. And again, these are often people who think racism is terrible.
Depressing? Yes. Surprising? I'm not sure. Although I am a bleeding heart liberal, sometimes I catch myself being more wary of black men on the street than white men, so obviously I have some internal association of black with violent. However, I firmly believe that all people are equal, and I would like to believe that I would not actually treat a black person differently than a white person. Maybe I am wrong.
Banaji has a website, https://implicit.harvard.edu/, where you can take these Implicit Association Tests and learn about your own unconscious preferences. You can either take demo tests or sign up to actually contribute to her research. I have taken two so far. In the U.S. Election 2008 test, although I showed no preference for black people over white people, I did show a slight preference for Obama over McCain. In a different test, I also showed a slight preference for thin people over fat people. Although, again, I think I am consciously aware of my prejudice towards less thin people. Which just goes to show that even though I know about it, I couldn't stop it.
Banaji hopes that in some way, taking these tests and learning about your unconscious biases may enable you to change your thoughts and behaviors. Research has shown that are brains are elastic, but it is not yet clear that they are plastic. In other words, although we can change them temporarily through some practices, the research is not yet positive that those changes can become permanent.
In other depressing news, these unconscious preferences are present in children at an early age. This information did surprise me, because I feel I was into my late teens before I actually developed some awareness of racism. I had been raised in a relatively Hispanic culture. I had friends who were black, but at the time I barely realized that. It wasn't until we moved back to Michigan and I started hearing jokes about Hispanics that I became keenly aware of racism. However, I think somehow this awareness has also led to my unconscious or conscious biases. And I'm sure I wasn't sheltered from racism when I was younger; I also realize today that my parents harbor some "isms" as well.
So what does this say about all of us? I'm not sure, but I hope this research will help us figure out how to change for the better. Interestingly enough, Banaji says Diversity Training is the worst thing a company can do. It actually results in more bias. Makes me think of the Office episode.
Through conjoint analysis tests, she has discovered that people will unwittingly give up $3400 salary (out of a $35,000 to $50,000 range) to have a male boss rather than a female boss. This goes for male and female respondents, including ones who state that no way, no how, do they have a preference for men over women.
She has found that doctors who are shown to have an unconscious bias against black people through Implicit Association Tests, actually prescribe fewer clot-busting drugs to their black patients than to their white patients. And again, these are often people who think racism is terrible.
Depressing? Yes. Surprising? I'm not sure. Although I am a bleeding heart liberal, sometimes I catch myself being more wary of black men on the street than white men, so obviously I have some internal association of black with violent. However, I firmly believe that all people are equal, and I would like to believe that I would not actually treat a black person differently than a white person. Maybe I am wrong.
Banaji has a website, https://implicit.harvard.edu/, where you can take these Implicit Association Tests and learn about your own unconscious preferences. You can either take demo tests or sign up to actually contribute to her research. I have taken two so far. In the U.S. Election 2008 test, although I showed no preference for black people over white people, I did show a slight preference for Obama over McCain. In a different test, I also showed a slight preference for thin people over fat people. Although, again, I think I am consciously aware of my prejudice towards less thin people. Which just goes to show that even though I know about it, I couldn't stop it.
Banaji hopes that in some way, taking these tests and learning about your unconscious biases may enable you to change your thoughts and behaviors. Research has shown that are brains are elastic, but it is not yet clear that they are plastic. In other words, although we can change them temporarily through some practices, the research is not yet positive that those changes can become permanent.
In other depressing news, these unconscious preferences are present in children at an early age. This information did surprise me, because I feel I was into my late teens before I actually developed some awareness of racism. I had been raised in a relatively Hispanic culture. I had friends who were black, but at the time I barely realized that. It wasn't until we moved back to Michigan and I started hearing jokes about Hispanics that I became keenly aware of racism. However, I think somehow this awareness has also led to my unconscious or conscious biases. And I'm sure I wasn't sheltered from racism when I was younger; I also realize today that my parents harbor some "isms" as well.
So what does this say about all of us? I'm not sure, but I hope this research will help us figure out how to change for the better. Interestingly enough, Banaji says Diversity Training is the worst thing a company can do. It actually results in more bias. Makes me think of the Office episode.
Science Writers 2008
I have been spending the weekend in sunny Palo Alto, at my very first Science Writer's Conference. There are a lot of people here, and they all enjoy a good swear, a good drink, and a good rip on the Republican party, it seems. And they say the news media is liberal...
Saturday was mostly about the industry and business of writing, but today started the New Horizons in Science sessions, where they bring in researchers to spend an hour or so discussing their discoveries. When I first saw that this was in the program for 3 days, I couldn't imagine how bored I would be with three days of science sessions. However, this first day was fabulous! I thought I loved water, but I can't remember the last time I went to a water conference where all the topics were fascinating to me. Although the Carpe Diem Climate Change conference I attended in Albuquerque was pretty darn good.
So I realize many of you dear readers are not scientists, but I would like to spend a few blog posts sharing some of this great research with you. And hopefully the next day or two is just as interesting and entertaining.
Saturday was mostly about the industry and business of writing, but today started the New Horizons in Science sessions, where they bring in researchers to spend an hour or so discussing their discoveries. When I first saw that this was in the program for 3 days, I couldn't imagine how bored I would be with three days of science sessions. However, this first day was fabulous! I thought I loved water, but I can't remember the last time I went to a water conference where all the topics were fascinating to me. Although the Carpe Diem Climate Change conference I attended in Albuquerque was pretty darn good.
So I realize many of you dear readers are not scientists, but I would like to spend a few blog posts sharing some of this great research with you. And hopefully the next day or two is just as interesting and entertaining.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)