Valentine's Day Special: Scientific Lovers

Those of you in the Boston/Providence area can avail yourselves of a service that will match you with a partner based on your own DNA! It's science! Yes, on ScientificMatch.com you can find a mate who is genetically compatible with you. Based on what criteria, you ask? What genes are examined? These questions and more will be answered in this Gateway Skepticism Valentine's Day Special: Scientific Lovers.

The site is actually very forthcoming with information. They've got a long page detailing their claims and the evidence for them. The first question they tackle is about the genes. What kind of analysis can they perform on genes to match you with a potential relationship?

Physical chemistry is based on the immune system. When we analyze your DNA, we look exclusively at your immune system genes. So, quite literally, when we say that two people have “chemistry”, we’re saying that their immune system genes are perfectly matched with each other.

By perfectly matched, we mean different.

After we analyze your DNA, we match you with other people who have different immune system genes from yourself.

The theory is that nature wants us to breed with other people who have different immune systems because it creates babies with a wider variety of immune system genes, and therefore, more robust immune systems—in other words, healthier babies.

That's what they do: look at genes in the major histocompatibility complex, MHC, and see how many you share with a potential mate. The fewer you have in common, the better matched you are with each other. It seems a rather simple metric considering the... well, rather sexy claims being made for the service.

When you share chemistry with someone, you significantly increase your chances of realizing these amazing benefits:

1. You'll love their natural body fragrance--they'll smell “sexier” than other people.


2. You'll have a more satisfying sex life.


3. If you’re a woman, you'll have a higher rate of orgasms.


4. There will be less cheating in your exclusive relationship.


5. As a couple, you'll be more fertile.


6. Your children will be healthier.

To me, these claims appear outlandish. However, my opinion counts for naught when references are provided for each claim. Yes, you read that correctly: it's a dating site that relies on published scientific research. Some of you might be pulling your credit cards out already, but let's examine in more detail first.

1. Chances are, you’ll love the natural body fragrance of your partner--they’ll smell sexier than other people

To back up this assertion, they cite an experiment in which women were asked to smell sweaty t-shirts worn by men. The relative rating by the women of pleasure of the smells was correlated with the difference in MHC genes between smeller and smelly smellee. A handy overview is given at the Wikipedia article for the author, Claus Wedekind.

This claim is actually pretty well established. It's a little weird, but could be true. If someone is matched to you by this service, you might like the smell of their sweat better than someone more similar to you in MHC genes—unless you're on the pill, in which case it's opposite. I wouldn't say it's enough to base a relationship on, so what about the other claims?

2. You’ll probably have a more satisfying sex life

3. If you’re a woman, chances are you’ll have a higher rate of orgasms

4. There’s a lower chance of cheating in your exclusive relationships when your DNA is matched properly

You may have noticed I presented three claims together—and what amazing claims they are!—and were wondering why. Well, as their primary support, these three wonderful sexy claims cite one and the same paper. That's right, on the same page that cites over 40 primary research papers and books, fully half of the amazing benefits of this DNA-matching service are resting on one published report. Let's read, shall we?

The paper (full reference below) can be found here. It approaches this question from a psychology perspective, administering a questionnaire about sexual satisfaction, cheating, etc. Honestly, I don't know enough about psychology research or statistics to know if there are any weaknesses in the study, save a few things.

First, the study involved only 48 couples. For such broad results, I would like to see something larger. Second, the participants were taken from a college campus and had mean ages 20.5 and 21.3 years for men and women, respectively. Hardly a representative group, especially for satisfaction in relationships and sexual behavior. Are 20-year-olds likely to be using a dating website? Third, I haven't seen any replication. Only three papers have cited this one (it is from 2006, after all) and none have checked the results.

None of these perceived-by-me weaknesses are deal-breakers for the accuracy of the study. It could be true that all three benefits of MHC-matching based on this paper and advertised by scientificmatch.com will come to you with a properly matched partner. But I wouldn't start a business around it, myself.

5. As a couple, you're probably more fertile

This is based on a few studies demonstrating that couples with dissimilar MHC genes have a lower rate of "spontaneous, unprovoked abortion." The studies appear pretty legit, but is having a lower rate of "spontaneous, unprovoked abortion" really the same thing as being "more fertile" as was claimed? The site is a little shifty about this point.

To be clear, they don’t show a correlation between chemistry and the ability to get pregnant. That wasn’t investigated in these studies, so they don’t disprove the correlation, either.

Riiiight. They don't say it'll happen, but they don't say it won't happen, do they?

6. Your children have a better chance of being healthy

This claim is extensively documented in humans and in other species. It seems obvious to me as a non-biologist who has scanned these papers that having many different haplotypes of the MHC genes will help prevent against some diseases and will possibly make the immune system better in general. This hypothesis has been tested and seems to be correct, again from a non-biologist's perspective.

I don't know about you, but I wasn't too convinced. The evidence for the good, fun stuff was a little shaky. Sure, having a slightly higher chance of healthy babies is great, but I'd really like to know more about the "more orgasm" thing. Can we get another study on that?

For those of you who have used or do use dating websites, maybe this one tickles your fancy. It certainly can't be any less scientific than some popular dating sites out there. I don't think it could hurt to give it a shot.

There's my Valentine's Day special skeptical gift: scientific analysis, tentative conclusions, and weak recommendations. It isn't romantic, it isn't a cure-all for your love problems, and it probably doesn't make blood flow to your naughty bits.

But it is the best thing I can give you: reality.

---

Full reference: Garver-Apgar, Christine E, Steven W Gangestad, Randy Thornhill, Robert D Miller, & Jon J Olp (2006) “Major Histocompatibility Complex Alleles, Sexual Responsivity, and Unfaithfulness in Romantic Couples,” Psychological Science, vol 17, no 10, pp 830-835.

Continue Reading...

I'm Honestly Just Curious

At our recent meeting, one of the Society members suggested writing an article investigating whether or not foods or other substances actually affect the flavor of semen. We joked about conducting a large blinded experiment, but jokes aside I wanted to know the real information. With that in mind, I hit the Internet.

Sadly, I didn't find much. Well, that's a lie: I found a lot. I just didn't find much that was useful.

First off, Snopes doesn't have an article on this. They do have several other articles involving semen, but none regarding flavor.

My next step was Google. I found a boatload of articles on what to eat or not eat to improve semen flavor, but most of them are uncited. In fact, many just seem to be using the argument from sex-columnist authority.

However, a few pages in my search stood out.

This one cites its source—in a way. The page displays an image captured from a book (click for a larger image on the native page), and that book is cited at the bottom of the page. However, the image itself contains a citation to a different source, and it's only a parenthetical reference. I could not track down the full reference, so as of now this chart remains anecdotal.

A BBC program conducted an experiment (with video, if you're interested). I think it might have been a little... poorly controlled.

There's a product on the market that claims to sweeten a man's semen. They present no scientific research, but the patent application (apparently for the same product) says the 27-couple market research was "highly positive." I bet.

Two sites referred to scientific tests (or the dearth thereof) on semen flavor. This WikiAnswers page mentions the lack of research before diving into the anecdotes. Dr. Drew calls the semen-flavor claim a "myth" and makes reference to people who have studied this. However, he provides no names or references, so this has to be chalked up to anecdote as well.

As of now, everything I've found has been anecdotal (with the exception of the BBC experiment). Since I'm not a person knowledgeable in medicine, Google's pretty much as far as I go. Well, I did do a Google Scholar search, but nothing interesting came up. So I ask you the reader, do you know of any evidence on this subject? Has anyone scientifically studied semen flavor?

Continue Reading...

Submitting to the Court

In a recent conversation, I said something to the effect of "Missouri is the meth capital of the country." Ben—being a diligent skeptic with the beard recently voted "most huggable"—called me on it. Rightfully so, I might add. Many times I have heard phrases of the form LOCATION X is the ACTIVITY A capital of LOCATION Y.

Of course, I promised a source. Herein I deliver—to the best of my ability.

I was able to track down a possible source of my memory of a statistic of this nature. This article was published in the student newspaper of my alma mater during my matriculation there, so it's certainly possible that I read it. I do remember reading something with a bar chart, but maybe they don't put those in the online editions.

Sadly, this article is low on citations—zero, in fact—and quotes a politician, not the best source in any case. So to back up my claim, it does nothing. It does, however, explain why that nugget is in my head.

The problem now is that I can't find any one source that's a silver bullet. I can find sources backing up my claims that Missouri does lead or has once lead the nation in some methamphetamine-related statistic or other, but they're poorly cited if at all. Or I can find sources giving numbers for each state individually, but not as an aggregate and not with any sort of convenient ranking. I'll give the best information I could get, but it's not authoritative. I guess we'll have to accept what we have.

For four years in a row Missouri had the highest number of meth lab seizures of any state in the nation. It's not necessarily the best metric we can find for that sort of thing, but it's what I can find. That statistic was repeated many places, but the best one is probably this mention from PBS's FRONTLINE, saying "For the past four years, the state has recorded the highest number of clandestine lab seizures in the nation." The page was created in 2006, but the statistics they use are of activity in 2004, so I'd say those "four years" are 2000-2004. For instance, the page says, "In 2004, 2,788 labs were seized by DEA, state and local authorities..."

The reason I think the FRONTLINE page is a credible source is that they give a citation. "Sources: U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration state factsheets, the Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Treatment Episode Date Set, and the National Alliance for Model State Drug Laws." Checking out the DEA factsheet reporting statistics on 2004, we find the same number claimed earlier: "Meth Lab Incidents: 2,788 (DEA, state, and local)."

The reason I don't think the FRONTLINE page is a wonderful source is that, to verify all their claims, I'd have to dig through years of these DEA factsheets on multiple states. They don't present one nation-encompassing graph of where these numbers are highest, so unless I want to create such a thing myself—and I do not—I'll have to trust FRONTLINE did their homework properly.

So there we have it. As with many arguments of this nature, there is no clear winner or loser. Was I right in making my claim? Yes, to a certain extent. There are meth-related metrics by which Missouri has recently claimed the dubious distinction of being number one. Was Ben right in calling me on it? Damn straight he was. What I actually said outstripped the facts, and had he not questioned it I wouldn't have given it a second thought. Kudos to him for demanding better of me.

That's one of the reasons I wanted to start the Society: I know I can do better. I can be a better skeptic. I can learn to better filter out the bad ideas that are right now in my head, just like this semi-bogus meth statistic was. But to do better I need practice, and to practice I need help from friends. I can read books and listen to podcasts, but until I let the court of public opinion provided by my peers cross-examinine my ideas, I'll never have a gauge of how well I'm really doing at rooting out my bad thinking.

So thanks, Ben. Pointing out my weaksauce statement may have been a throwaway comment for you, but I appreciate it.

Continue Reading...

Advice: Part 1

I recently sent an email to Steve Novella, but before I get to its contents I must make a request. The link I just gave is to Steve's recently created Wikipedia page. I'm one of only a few editors giving it a go on that article, and I could use some assistance.
You can help if you

1. Read this blog (how else would you be reading this?)
2. Listen to the Skeptics' Guide
3. Edit Wikipedia.

Yes, we can use you. Go!

On to the email. After informing him of his new Wikipedification I asked Dr. Novella if he had any advice to a new skeptical organization. Of course he did. A lot, in fact, some of which Ben and I had come up with on our own, but much of which was fresh. Over several posts I plan to act on or research this advice.

In this, the first of my series, I tackle this charge:

Keep on the lookout for any local controversies - like pushing ID into the school system.

Anyone who is from St. Louis will know that, as a first action, this is a copout. The St. Louis City public school system is probably not going to fall to ID any time soon, because they've got a lot of other things on their minds. This article from today's Post-Dispatch gives a good summary of the situation. Thus, there's really no work for me to do. The St. Louis City schools really want to get accredited again, so they'll probably not concern themselves with bold new science curricula. I don't see them sticking their necks out over ID when the elected board was stripped of its powers and a new interim board was appointed by the governor. That's why it's a copout: I know it won't happen. No work required.

Still, I'll keep my eye on the situation. Perhaps some district in the county or in St. Charles will try something, and then I'll be able to follow through with the rest of Steve's advice on the topic.

You should be all over that with press releases and op-eds in the local papers. Make yourselves as visible as possible.

Rest assured that if anything on the ID front does stir in my neighborhood, we'll be [one of] the first to break it.

Continue Reading...

Ho Ho Hustle!

I just had a post-Thanksgiving get together with my family. The news item on everyone's lips was that Santas everywhere have been banned from saying "Ho ho ho." Apparently the onomatopoeia "ho" could be offensive to women and Santa shouldn't be heard saying that! My family was aghast. Was nothing sacred? This is political correctness gone too far! How, they asked, could anyone be so bold?

How, I asked, could anyone believe that story?

I didn't say anything at the time, because I didn't have any sources on hand, but my skeptical alarm bells were ringing. First, there was never an identified antagonist behind this ban, only a vague "them." To me that smacks of urban legend. Second, the scale of this story is implausible. The idea of changing a lovable character's catchphrase simply because of an alternate slang definition is silly. There may be a few (very few) people who think it's a good idea, but instituting some general "ban" would never gain traction. So my prediction was either, a) someone had suggested this as a "What's next in the War on Christmas?" hypothetical that got twisted into a ban, or b) a small group made a small suggestion that someone somewhere might want to consider thinking about changing "ho ho ho," and it got picked up by media sources as a ban.

Upon reaching home, my first step was a quick Snopes search. Sadly, no results. Either this hasn't reached bona fide urban legend status, or it wasn't in a popular chain email. I moved on.

Step two was a Google News search, with the search string "ho ho ho". I caught the trail here. Most of the results are editorials in several newspapers. One common thread: all the stories mention the flap is over Santas in Australia, not America. Eventually I found an article mentioning the original source: Australian newspaper The Daily Telegraph.

This article does mention a ban, saying

Santas across Sydney are rebelling against attempts to ban their traditional greeting of "ho, ho, ho" in favour of "ha, ha, ha".

They also cite the motivation being the alternate definition of the word "ho,"

One would-be Santa has told The Daily Telegraph he was taught not to use "ho, ho, ho" because it was too close to the American slang for prostitute.

Mixed in with the emotional anecdotes is the real story, however.

Recruitment firm Westaff - which supplies hundreds of Santas across the country - has told its trainees that the "ho ho ho" phrase could frighten children and could even be derogatory to women.

A Westaff manager Sari Hegarty clarifies the situation:

Part of our advice to our Santas is that they should be mindful of children having their first Santa experience.
We ask our Santas to try techniques such as lowering their tone of voice and using 'ha, ha, ha' to encourage the children to come forward and meet Santa. We wish you and your family a very merry Christmas.

On their website, Westaff has statements regarding this incident. In a press release, they assure "the public we celebrate Santa's signature saying, 'ho, ho, ho,' and no directive forbidding the language, for any reason, was issued by the company." A longer document (PDF) is full of information on the company's stance; it is, needless to say, not against the phrase "ho ho ho."

This sounds much more plausible. A Santa training company told its wannabe helpers that a hearty "Ho ho ho!" might start the little ones crying, and they should perhaps consider saying "Ha ha ha!" in a softer tone. This sounds nothing like a ban, just a suggestion that got blown out of proportion. Even the accusations that the alternate definition of "ho" was a motivation came from non-Westaff sources, so I consider them suspect.

How, then, did this myth get started? Knowing that no ban ever existed or was attempted by anyone, let's read the first few lines of the Daily Telegraph article again.

Santa fury at 'ho, ho, ho' ban
HE is an unlikely revolutionary but this Christmas, Santa is a rebel with a claus.
He is having the last laugh on political correctness - and it's a great big fat belly laugh.
Santas across Sydney are rebelling against attempts to ban their traditional greeting of "ho, ho, ho" in favour of "ha, ha, ha".

"Santa fury"? A "revolutionary"? Santas are "rebelling"? Where did they get any of that? The Westaff sources are quoted in the article, so it should have been clear that this story had nothing backing it up. However, the authors wasted no time in going far beyond the evidence, reporting trumped-up anecdotes to combat "the latest example of political correctness gone mad." This is simply irresponsible journalism. And most other news outlets just parroted the original story with no investigation at all. Shame on them.

Not all media outlets are guilty, however. I did find a few sources questioning this story, and they deserve mention. Sign on San Diego initially reported the story credulously, then retracted a few hours later as new information came in. Kudos to them. And Canadian news site CBC.CA ran a great piece pointing out flaws in the article and The Daily Telegraph itself. Good going for them.

So next time you're enjoying a little turkey and hear a story that doesn't sound quite right, file it away. Chances are you could probe the surface just a little and find something a lot more plausible.

Continue Reading...