In an intriguing, though preliminary, bit of research out of Princeton University, it was discovered that there may be such a link:

Students interested in pursuing a major in the humanities or social sciences were twice as likely to report that a family member had a mood disorder or a problem with substance abuse. Students with an interest in science and technical majors, on the other hand, were three times more likely to report a sibling with an ASD, a range of developmental disorders that includes autism and Asperger syndrome. [source]

Hmm. Interesting. But did I find this so interesting simply because I have a number of "wing-nuts" in my family (I'm not getting any more specific than that!), and I likely share their genes? One has to wonder.

More seriously, a reason I find the link plausible is that each human being is born with a unique brain. Each of us has a nervous system that works somewhat differently. Because of that, we have differing responses to events, different preferences for stimulation type and degree, if you will, etc. Why wouldn't our unique nervous systems -- all other things being equal -- influence the field we are drawn to?

[recycled material - first appeared here]

Three recent, separate studies have illustrated how chemicals and chemical levels can influence thoughts, feelings, behavior: human psychology. In two of the studies, the chemicals were endogenous, or internally produced, in the third, exogenous.

1) Dopamine and pleasure.

The first sentence to the news release tells it:

Enhancing the effects of the brain chemical dopamine influences how people make life choices by affecting expectations of pleasure, according to new research from the UCL Institute of Neurology. [bold added][source]

Drugs that influence dopamine levels in the brain include cocaine, nicotine, and amphetamines. Caffeine, too.

2) Carbon dioxide and fear.

Yes, your body creates carbon dioxide. Oxygen comes in through the lungs, carbon dioxide out. Higher levels of carbon dioxide have been found to trigger fear and anxiety.

A new study by University of Iowa researchers shows that carbon dioxide increases brain acidity, which in turn activates a brain protein that plays an important role in fear and anxiety behavior. [source]

Like the above on pleasure, this finding on fear has important mental health implications.

[T]he study team, including first author Adam Ziemann, M.D., Ph.D., found that making brain tissue less acidic (raising brain pH) blunted fear behavior produced by carbon dioxide and reduced learned fear. [bold added]

This is your brain; this is your brain with an altered pH. This is your emotional state and behavior; this is your emotional state and behavior with acidic brain tissue.

3) Phthalates and effeminate play.

Phthalates do not naturally occur in the human body. They are used by industry to soften plastics. When humans are exposed to these the can be absorbed. And when in a mother's body, the can influence the developing fetus.

Phthalates are also found in vinyl and plastic tubing, household products, and many personal care products such as soaps and lotions. Phthalates are becoming more controversial as scientific research increasingly associates them with genital defects, metabolic abnormalities, and reduced testosterone in babies and adults. [source]

The news release containing the above information reported this very interesting finding:

In Swan's study, higher concentrations of metabolites of two phthalates, di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), and dibutyl phthalate (DBP), were associated with less male-typical behavior in boys on a standard play questionnaire....Girls' play behavior was not associated with phthalate levels in their mothers, the study concluded.

Phthalates have previously been recognized as anti-androgenic compounds: they act against or disrupt the male hormones. How could the mothers' exposure to this chemical affect their boys' style of play?

Swan hypothesized that phthalates may lower fetal testosterone production during a critical window of development – somewhere within eight to 24 weeks gestation, when the testes begin to function – thereby altering brain sexual differentiation. [bold added]

Who knew that studying chemistry in school could aid your understanding of human psychology? We now know better.

A curious aspect of human child abuse is the "cycle of abuse" element. Victims of child abuse are more likely to develop into perpetrators of abuse. For the psychologist of the humanist variety, this doesn't make sense. You would think that the abused child would have learned from his /her harsh experience and become, in fact, less likely to abuse. Wouldn't personally experienced sadness and anger make a person more sympathetic?

Psychologists of the psychodynamic persuasion, meanwhile, may explain the cycle dynamic in terms of becoming "stuck" or failing to resolve the hurt. Perhaps they secretly hate their abused self, and they attempt to work it out variously on their own victims.

But hold your horses. Or in this case, birds. Research on seabirds has surprisingly uncovered a similar cycle of abuse.

The new study of Nazca boobies by Wake Forest University researchers provides the first evidence from the animal world showing those who are abused when they are young often grow up to be abusers. The study appears in the October issue of the ornithology journal, The Auk.

"We were surprised by the intense interest that many adults show in unrelated young, involving really rough treatment," said Wake Forest Professor of Biology Dave Anderson, who led the study with Wake Forest graduate student Martina Müller. "A bird's history as a target of abuse proved to be a strong predictor of its adult behavior."

In Nazca boobies, traumatic abuse of developing young significantly increases the chances those maltreated individuals will exhibit the same maltreatment later in life as adults, Müller said.

How do the researchers come to their conclusion? Good question.

The researchers collected data during three breeding seasons documenting which nestlings suffered abuse or neglect, then several years later evaluated their behavior as adults in the same colony. They tracked the birds and identified them using leg bands. [source]

While this skeptic wonders about potential observational bias (was it blinded in any way -- such as the observers of the adult birds' behavior not knowing which had suffered the abuse as nestlings -- I consider the finding plausible. Why? Certainly not because the theorizing of Freud is applicable to boobies (sorry). But because I know many species are capable of context-based, observational learning. For instance a human child can learn to read to his/her doll by being read to him/herself. Is that part of what happens in the cycle-of-abuse phenomenon?

Previously I may have chalked some of it up to socioeconomic factors. But that certainly doesn't apply to birds. I don't think.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

A news release about a new study on Kava as a treatment for anxiety caught my attention. In it I found some bad and some stupid. Fortunately--and contrary to what usually happens--there was a link to the published article itself, and there I found a bunch of good. Usually I tend to encounter hidden bad when I dig deeper.

First, the bad. Then the good. Finally, the stupid.

The bad. The news release reported that "the placebo-controlled study found Kava to be an effective and safe treatment option for people with chronic anxiety and varying levels of depression." Beyond that general statement, the report gave zero numbers. No precision with that element of scientific language. "It worked," is not very helpful in evaluating a treatment.

Also, while the study was deemed "safe," raising "no major health concerns," the trial lasted a pathetically brief three weeks. Three weeks!

Upon clicking a link to an abstract from the Springer journal Psychopharmacology, I found the option to view the full text in .pdf. And so I did. And, surprise, surprise! I discovered that the researchers did some very good science.

The good. Besides being placebo-controlled, the trial was randomized and double-blinded. Okay, there were only 37 subjects that completed the trial. Still, it is good to know, and reasons for drop-outs were explicitly stated.

And the treatment was indeed significantly effective. For example, on the primary measure (Hamilton Anxiety Scale: total range of 0 to 56) anxiety scores fell an .8 points in the placebo group and 9.9 points in the Kava group. That indeed rates as "effective."

Now for the stupid. Statements like this, made by the lead researcher, perpetuate ignorance and folklore:

“We’ve been able to show that Kava offers a natural alternative for the treatment of anxiety, and unlike some pharmaceutical options, has less risk of dependency and less potential of side effects,” Mr. Sarris said.

First, no, Mr. Sarris, you have not shown less risk of dependency and side effects with a single, three-week trial of 37 subjects.

Second, "a natural alternative"? Oh come on. Please. Be a little more scientific and don't perpetuate stupid misunderstandings. Here is the difference between "natural" and "conventional" medicines: the connotations of words. Natural brings to mind forests and flitting fairies perhaps, conventional conjures up images of laboratories.

Any safe medicine consists of chemicals manufactured or extracted to a concentrated and standardized dose. In terms of this study, the "natural Kava" came in tablets containing 250 mg. kavalactones. Subjects didn't drink it out of a coconut shell while listening to tribal drumming.

Seen another way, alternative treatment are simply para- and/or pre-conventional. They have yet to be fully tested and distilled to higher potency. And safer form as well, for many raw, alternative treatments contain undesirable chemicals along with the effective ones.

Science done well provides so much good. But yes, along with the good we can find doses of bad and stupid. Maybe some day there will be a way to better extract and concentrate the good, for the good of the general public.

[recycled material - first appeared here]

A news release about a new study on Kava as a treatment for anxiety caught my attention. In it I found some bad and some stupid. Fortunately--and contrary to what usually happens--there was a link to the published article itself, and there I found a bunch of good. Usually I tend to encounter hidden bad when I dig deeper.

First, the bad. Then the good. Finally, the stupid.

The bad. The news release reported that "the placebo-controlled study found Kava to be an effective and safe treatment option for people with chronic anxiety and varying levels of depression." Beyond that general statement, the report gave zero numbers. No precision with that element of scientific language. "It worked," is not very helpful in evaluating a treatment.

Also, while the study was deemed "safe," raising "no major health concerns," the trial lasted a pathetically brief three weeks. Three weeks!

Upon clicking a link to an abstract from the Springer journal Psychopharmacology, I found the option to view the full text in .pdf. And so I did. And, surprise, surprise! I discovered that the researchers did some very good science.

The good. Besides being placebo-controlled, the trial was randomized and double-blinded. Okay, there were only 37 subjects that completed the trial. Still, it is good to know, and reasons for drop-outs were explicitly stated.

And the treatment was indeed significantly effective. For example, on the primary measure (Hamilton Anxiety Scale: total range of 0 to 56) anxiety scores fell an .8 points in the placebo group and 9.9 points in the Kava group. That indeed rates as "effective."

Now for the stupid. Statements like this, made by the lead researcher, perpetuate ignorance and folklore:

“We’ve been able to show that Kava offers a natural alternative for the treatment of anxiety, and unlike some pharmaceutical options, has less risk of dependency and less potential of side effects,” Mr. Sarris said.

First, no, Mr. Sarris, you have not shown less risk of dependency and side effects with a single, three-week trial of 37 subjects.

Second, "a natural alternative"? Oh come on. Please. Be a little more scientific and don't perpetuate stupid misunderstandings. Here is the difference between "natural" and "conventional" medicines: the connotations of words. Natural brings to mind forests and flitting fairies perhaps, conventional conjures up images of laboratories.

Any safe medicine consists of chemicals manufactured or extracted to a concentrated and standardized dose. In terms of this study, the "natural Kava" came in tablets containing 250 mg. kavalactones. Subjects didn't drink it out of a coconut shell while listening to tribal drumming.

Seen another way, alternative treatment are simply para- and/or pre-conventional. They have yet to be fully tested and distilled to higher potency. And safer form as well, for many raw, alternative treatments contain undesirable chemicals along with the effective ones.

Science done well provides so much good. But yes, along with the good we can find doses of bad and stupid. Maybe some day there will be a way to better extract and concentrate the good, for the good of the general public.