Neuroreductionism about sex and love

Neuroreductionism about sex and love | Brian D. Earp – Academia.edu.

Excerpt from the 2014 paper **

Abstract

“Neuroreductionism” is the tendency to reduce complex mental phenomena to brainstates, confusing correlation for physical causation. In this paper, we illustrate thedangers of this popular neuro-fallacy, by looking at an example drawn from the media: astory about “hypoactive sexual desire disorder” in women. We discuss the role of folkdualism in perpetuating such a confusion, and draw some conclusions about the role of“brain scans” in our understanding of romantic love.

* * *There has been a surge of interest in recent years in “the neuroscience of love.” Bylooking at images of people’s brains when they are gazing pictures of their romantic partner, forexample, and comparing those against images of the same people looking at pictures of aplatonic friend, scientists have begun to construct a picture of “what is going on in our brains”when we we’re in love. They’re also starting to identify a number of brain chemicals—such asoxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin—that seem to play in role in whether and how we formromantic and other social attachments.

For some people, this research is exciting—opening upnew frontiers for how we understand some of our most basic human experiences. For others, it’sa little bit unsettling. Doesn’t it suggest that “love”—our most prized and mysterious emotion—is really just a bunch of stupid brain chemicals swirling around in our skulls?The answer is yes and no.

At one level of description,everything that we experience,from, yes, falling in love, to, say, getting a stomach ache after eating a burrito, is (at least in principle) explainable in terms of microscopic events playing out between our neurons. But there are many different levels of description—including psychological, social, cultural, and even philosophical—that are just as important if we want to have a more complete understanding ofthe sorts of things that matter to us in our daily existence.

“Brain chemicals” only get us so far…….

***

Related articles

• The Chemistry of Love: What Causes Desire, Commitment, and the Pleasure of Love?
• Prevent Heartbreak With Anti-Love Drugs

Drugs From Nature, Then and Now – Medicines By Design

 

From the article at the US National Institutes of Health,  last reviewed on October 27, 2011

Chapter 3: Drugs From Nature, Then and Now – Medicines By Design – Science Education – National Institute of General Medical Sciences

Long before the first towns were built, before written language was invented, and even before plants were cultivated for food, the basic human desires to relieve pain and prolong life fueled the search for medicines. No one knows for sure what the earliest humans did to treat their ailments, but they probably sought cures in the plants, animals, and minerals around them.

[The table of contents]

• Nature’s Medicine Cabinet
• Natural Cholesterol-Buster
• Cancer Therapy Sees the Light
• Ocean Medicines
• Miracle Cures
• Prospecting Biology?

• Tweaking Nature
• Toxicogenetics: Poisons and Your Genes
• Is It Chemistry or Genetics?
• Blending Science
• Testing..I, II, III
• Got It? 

  ………

…Crews is among a new breed of researchers delving into a growing scientific area called chemical genetics (see main text). Taking this approach, scientists use chemistry to attack biological problems that traditionally have been solved through genetic experiments such as the genetic engineering of bacteria, yeast, and mice. Crews’ goal is to explore how natural products work in living systems and to identify new targets for designing drugs. He has discovered how an inflammation-fighting ingredient in the medicinal herb feverfew may work inside cells.

He found that the ingredient, called parthenolide, appears to disable a key process that gets inflammation going. In the case of feverfew, a handful of controlled scientific studies in people have hinted that the herb, also known by its plant name “bachelor’s button,” is effective in combating migraine headaches, but further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings….

Related articles

• Is the next ‘new’ cancer drug already in your medicine cabinet?
• Medicinal Plants from the Forest
• Institute of Medicine::.Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base
• openFDA – More than 3 million adverse drug event reports at your fingertips.
• Nature’s chem lab: How microorganisms manufacture drugs
• Experts moot herbal gardens

[News article] BBC – Future – Does wearing glasses weaken your eyesight?

BBC – Future – Does wearing glasses weaken your eyesight?.

From the May 2014 article

…A study from Nigeria published last year found 64% of students believed that wearing glasses can damage eyes. Research in the Indian state of Karnataka put the figure at 30%, and in Pakistan 69% of people feel the same way. In Brazil, even medical staff believed that your eyes would gradually get weaker as a consequence of wearing glasses. Is there any evidence to suggest they are right?

There are, of course, two very different reasons why people wear glasses – short-sightedness, or myopia, where things in the distance are blurry; and long-sightedness, or hyperopia, where you can’t focus on things close up. Long-sightedness is often age-related: many people begin noticing in their 40-50s that it’s difficult to read in low lighting. As we age the lenses in our eyes gradually stiffen, making it harder to adjust to different distances. When people get to the stage where their arms aren’t long enough to hold a book or menu far enough away to focus on the text, they opt for reading glasses.

What’s surprising is how few trials have been conducted on the prolonged effect of wearing glasses. And from what we know there’s no persuasive evidence that wearing reading glasses affects your eyesight….

Related articles

• Occasional glass of wine could save your eyesight

snopes.com: Reuse of Plastic Bottles

snopes.com: Reuse of Plastic Bottles.

From the 13 April 2004 article

….such claims are inaccurate on two counts: DEHA is not used in the manufacture of PET bottles (nor is it created through the breakdown of such bottles), and DEHA is not classified as a human carcinogen:

DEHA is neither regulated nor classified as a human carcinogen by the U.S. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, the National Toxicology Program or the International Agency for Research on Cancer, the leading authorities on carcinogenic substances.

In 1991, on the basis of very limited data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency classified DEHA as a “possible human carcinogen.” However, in 1995, EPA again evaluated the science and concluded that ” … overall, the evidence is too limited to establish that DEHA is likely to cause cancer.”

Further, DEHA is not inherent in PET as a raw material, byproduct or decomposition product.

Moreover, DEHA has been cleared by FDA for food-contact applications and would not pose a health risk even if it were present.

Finally, in June 2003, the Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Testing and Research conducted a scientific study of migration in new and reused plastic water bottles from three countries. The Swiss study did not find DEHA at concentrations significantly above the background levels detected in distilled water, indicating DEHA was unlikely to have migrated from the bottles. The study concluded that the levels of DEHA were distinctly below the World Health Organization guidelines for safe drinking water.

The American Cancer Society also debunked such claims, stating:

In fact, DEHA is not inherent in the plastic used to make these bottles, and even if it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says DEHA “cannot reasonably be anticipated to cause cancer, teratogenic effects, immunotoxicity, neurotoxicity, gene mutations, liver, kidney, reproductive, or developmental toxicity or other serious or irreversible chronic health effects.” Meanwhile, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), says diethylhexyl adipate “is not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans.”

As for the notion that freezing water in plastic bottles releases dioxin, the American Chemical Council asserted:

There simply is no scientific basis to support the claim that PET bottles will release dioxin when frozen. Dioxins are a family of chemical compounds that are produced by combustion at extremely high temperatures. They can only be formed at temperatures well above 700 degrees Fahrenheit; they cannot be formed at room temperature or in freezing temperatures. Moreover, there is no reasonable scientific basis for expecting dioxins to be present in plastic food or beverage containers in the first place.

Johns Hopkins researcher Dr. Rolf Halden also said of such claims that:

Q: What do you make of this recent email warning that claims dioxins can be released by freezing water in plastic bottles?

A: This is an urban legend. There are no dioxins in plastics. In addition, freezing actually works against the release of chemicals. Chemicals do not diffuse as readily in cold temperatures, which would limit chemical release if there were dioxins in plastic, and we don’t think there are.

Dr. Halden did note that drinking water from plastic bottles that had been exposed to high temperatures could be problematic, though:

There is another group of chemicals, called phthalates that are sometimes added to plastics to make them flexible and less brittle. Phthalates are environmental contaminants that can exhibit hormone-like behavior by acting as endocrine disruptors in humans and animals. If you heat up plastics, you could increase the leaching of phthalates from the containers into water and food.

Another common type of plastic bottle is made with bisphenol A, also known as BPA. These products are typically rigid plastic bottles intended for multiple re-use, such as baby bottles or water bottles carried by cyclists. Concerns about tests that may link BPA ingestion with cancer and reproductive damage in some animals and the possibility that BPA could leach out of plastic bottles and into the liquids they contain has led to bans on the use of BPA in plastic products intended for children (such as baby bottles), and has prompted some consumers to seek out non-BPA alternatives.
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/medical/toxins/plasticbottles.asp#uD3X2UPBl0L8LhsG.99

Related articles

• Positive Solutions for plastic top ten false rumors
• A Plastic Pollution Cocktail: Toxic Chemicals in Everyday Items
• The True Cost of Bottled Water
• Reduce, Reuse – is it safe?
• Is Drinking From a Water Bottle Left in the Car Dangerous?

This Newspaper Repels Mosquitoes, Makes Us Want To Give Print Another Chance

 

This Newspaper Repels Mosquitoes, Makes Us Want To Give Print Another Chance.

From the 30 June Huffington Post article

….

The paper combined citronella essence — a highly effective and all-natural repellent — with the newspaper’s ink, enabling readers to coat their skin with a repellent that could keep mosquitoes away.

…

Global Health: Time to Pay Attention to Chronic Diseases

From the 1 Ju;ly 2014 blog post

…While infectious diseases remain a significant problem in the developing world, cancer, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, and other non-communicable diseases are now among the fastest growing causes of death and disability around the globe. In fact, nearly three-quarters of the 38 million people who died of chronic diseases in 2012 lived in low- or middle-income countries [1].

…

The good news is that many NCDs can be prevented by making lifestyle changes, such as reducing salt intake for hypertension, stopping smoking for cancer and heart disease, or venting cookstove fumes for lung disease. Other NCDs can be averted or controlled by taking medications, such as statins for high cholesterol or metformin for diabetes.

 

Related articles

• Australians living longer but with more chronic diseases
• Central America: Dealing with chronic kidney disease
• Reducing just six risk factors could prevent 37 million deaths from chronic diseases over 15 years
• WHO director general warns of rise in chronic diseases
• Venereal Diseaes in the United States