Slashdot Mirror
Possible Love Molecule?
aychamo writes "Psychiatrists from Pavia University have associated early romantic love with a biochemical known as nerve growth factor (NGF). Apparently, levels of NGF in the bloodstream were significantly higher in subjects who were in the early stages of romance than individuals not in a relationship. Interestingly, "subjects in love who--after 12-24 months--maintained the same relationship but were no longer in the same mental state to which they had referred during the initial evaluation" did not have elevated NGF levels."
I'm not trying to sound like a smartass - and I really think this is a neat discovery, to isolate an associated molecule, perhaps - but did anyone with a serious biology background really believe that a neurally modulated social interaction that had obvious and enduring systemic physiological effects *wasn't* associated with circulating factors or hormones?
I mean, there's a systemic effect that's present for a limited duration. I'm not trying to "ruin love", but why should it have worked any differently?
I agree with the point that you're making, however, the study does seem to strongly indicate a causation relationship. From the summary:
"Apparently, levels of NGF in the bloodstream were significantly higher in subjects who were in the early stages of romance than individuals not in a relationship."
If love was the result of the presence of this chemical, as you suggested, we would expect to see a high level of the chemical in at least a small percentage of the individuals who were not in a relationship at the time of the study. This small percentage would represent the people who were ready to fall in love/enter a relationship but had not yet done so. Since the higher levels were found only in people who had recently fallen in love and not in the other groups, including those in long term relationships, the data seems to indicate that it was falling in love/starting a relationship that triggered production of the chemical.
Of course, a larger study would be needed to more confidently state that there is such a causation relationship, but from what little I've read of this study, there IS some evidence leaning towards that conclusion.
Why does Slashduh keep insisting on trying to report on the life sciences when it (the editors and story submitters) are so obviously clueless about the topic?
To begin with, why the fuck is there a link to totally idiotic misinterpretations in the popular mainstream media instead of a link to an abstract of the original article in Journal of Psychoneuroendocrinology?
Needless to say, the Yahoo!/Reuters article was awful.
"The powerful emotions that bowl over new lovers are triggered by a molecule known as nerve growth factor (NGF), according to Pavia University researchers."
No! The researchers said no such thing at all!
They said that they have shown that there's a high plasma level of NGF in subjects who have recently fallen in love. That is all, and it's not surprising or ground breaking. We already know that love (and other emotions) are associated with varying levels of growth factors in general and neurotrophins in particular, along with a host of other changes in our chemistry. For example, here is a study showing that kissing affects immune responses by way of NGF. NGF is no "love molecule" any more than it is a "stress molecule" or a "healing molecule". NGF does not cause love or kissing! Quit being sensationalistic retards!
Slashdot supposedly reports "news for nerds, stuff that matters". Then why is it OK to report laymen's misconceptions about "love molecules", when it would be unacceptable to propagate e.g. laymen's misconceptions in the mainstream media about "hackers", or calling a harddisk a "virus device" (only because it can also store computer viruses)?
Why is it OK to post biology news from Yahoo! instead of from the original source, when a submission containing just as vague, dumbed down and incorrect news from Yahoo! about e.g. the Linux kernel would never get published here (other than for comedic effect)?
I humbly suggest that Slashduh should quit reporting on other sciences than technology. You'll obviously never get it right or even know what actually is the stuff that matters in those news.
Help savingAmigaOS and a free PowerPC market
Nature makes sure that a couple stays at least paired up for the time until the mother has fully recovered from birth.
;-)
That's a relic from (wo)mens eary days, with no birth control and morale in society: you fall in love, have sex, have a child. Thats how nature intended it.
Not that it isn't uncool, that there is a special molecule involved
I don't think thats the point. Its more that correlation is the science equivalent of vaporware, or "Wake me up when you've got causation".
Reports of a new correlation between events in the popular press just confound the general public who don't understand science, and assume that because a scientist finds this correlation interesting it must be true. This is proved frequently on Slashdot, where otherwise normal geeks, who have an above average understanding of science (that's a scary thought) are thrown into a frenzy of panic when somebody says something like "High concentration of caffiene in the blood is found to reduce attraction to women".
I'm not saying Joe 'Karma' Whore should get +5 Insightful everytime they state the obvious, but it would appear that Correlation != Causation can't be said enough when dealing with the public.
Scared of flying, pointy things snce 1979!
You know this would never fly, and the reason is simple.
Look how much violence gets on US tv, and what happens? A little muttering about violence, and then more violence. But just watch Janet Jackson's nipple show on TV, and watch the fan REALLY turn dripping brown.
If we were to drop the love bomb on a rioting crowd, it just might work effectively. Then there might be that REAL crisis, public nudity and some of them might even *gasp* have sexual intercourse.
Remember, this is the same society that is considering witholding a vaccine for papiloma virus (a major cause of cervical cancer) because they're concerned that it might encourage promiscuity.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.