Altruistic behavior, self-sacrifice among strangers has more to do with nurture than nature, or culture more than genes, U.S. researchers suggest.
Adrian V. Bell and colleagues of the University of California, Davis, say behaviors that help unrelated people while being costly to the individual and creating a risk for genetic descendants could not likely be favored by evolution -- at least by common evolutionary arguments.
The researchers used a mathematical equation -- the Price equation -- that describes the conditions for altruism to evolve. This equation motivated the researchers to compare the genetic and the cultural differentiation between neighboring social groups.
Using previously calculated estimates of genetic differences, they used the World Values Survey -- questions are likely to be heavily influenced by culture in a large number of countries -- as a source of data to compute the cultural differentiation between the same neighboring groups.
Health & Wellness
Imaging study finds similar brain function among devout, nonreligious
When it comes to religion, believers and nonbelievers appear to think very differently. But at the level of the brain, is believing in God different from believing that the sun is a star or that 4 is an even number?
While religious faith remains one of the most significant features of human life, little is known about its relationship to ordinary belief. Nor is it known whether religious believers differ from nonbelievers in how they evaluate statements of fact.
In the first neuroimaging study to systematically compare religious faith with ordinary cognition, UCLA and University of Southern California researchers have found that while the human brain responds very differently to religious and nonreligious propositions, the process of believing or disbelieving a statement, whether religious or not, seems to be governed by the same areas in the brain.
The study also found that devout Christians and nonbelievers use the same brain regions to judge the truth of religious and nonreligious propositions. The results, the study authors say, represent a critical advance in the psychology of religion. The paper appears Sept. 30 in the journal PLoS ONE.
When it comes to religion, believers and nonbelievers appear to think very differently. But at the level of the brain, is believing in God different from believing that the sun is a star or that 4 is an even number?
While religious faith remains one of the most significant features of human life, little is known about its relationship to ordinary belief. Nor is it known whether religious believers differ from nonbelievers in how they evaluate statements of fact.
In the first neuroimaging study to systematically compare religious faith with ordinary cognition, UCLA and University of Southern California researchers have found that while the human brain responds very differently to religious and nonreligious propositions, the process of believing or disbelieving a statement, whether religious or not, seems to be governed by the same areas in the brain.
The study also found that devout Christians and nonbelievers use the same brain regions to judge the truth of religious and nonreligious propositions. The results, the study authors say, represent a critical advance in the psychology of religion. The paper appears Sept. 30 in the journal PLoS ONE.
© Film Images
Hit Play for Slo-Mo...OK, maybe not that slow.
Hit Play for Slo-Mo...OK, maybe not that slow.
Researchers have found that manipulating a particular brain wave can force human subjects to move more slowly, and provided some of the first evidence of how brain waves can directly affect behavior.
A group of 14 volunteers received brain stimulation as they tried to manipulate the position of a spot on a computer screen with a joystick. That stimulation led to a 10 percent drop in execution of the computer task.
The electrical current used in this study specifically boosted normal beta activity that has links to sustained muscle activities, such as holding a book. Such beta activity typically drops off before people make a move.
A derivative of cholesterol is necessary for the formation of brain cells, according to a study from the Swedish medical university Karolinska Institutet. The results, which are published in the journal Cell Stem Cell, can help scientists to cultivate dopamine-producing cells outside the body.
The study was led by Professor Ernest Arenas and demonstrates that the formation of dopamine-producing neurons during brain development in mice is dependent on the activation of a specific receptor in the brain by an oxidised form of cholesterol called oxysterol. Dopamine-producing nerve cells play an important part in many brain functions and processes, from motor skills to reward systems and dependency. They are also the type of cell that dies in Parkinson's disease.
The scientists have also shown that embryonic stem cells cultivated in the laboratory, form more dopamine-producing nerve cells if they are treated with oxidised cholesterol. The same treatment also reduced the tendency of the stem cells to show uncontrolled growth.
The study was led by Professor Ernest Arenas and demonstrates that the formation of dopamine-producing neurons during brain development in mice is dependent on the activation of a specific receptor in the brain by an oxidised form of cholesterol called oxysterol. Dopamine-producing nerve cells play an important part in many brain functions and processes, from motor skills to reward systems and dependency. They are also the type of cell that dies in Parkinson's disease.
The scientists have also shown that embryonic stem cells cultivated in the laboratory, form more dopamine-producing nerve cells if they are treated with oxidised cholesterol. The same treatment also reduced the tendency of the stem cells to show uncontrolled growth.
An Introduction by Tom Engelhardt:
Hardly less startling than finding herself with breast cancer was Barbara Ehrenreich's discovery of the "pink ribbon culture," of, that is, the enforced cheerfulness and positive thinking that accompanied it (and the teddy bears and "cornucopia of pink-ribbon-themed breast cancer products" which went with that). Back in 2001, she wrote a fierce, wonderful piece for Harper's Magazine, "Welcome to Cancerland," about her experience, and what to do with anger when it's equated with "negativity," and so ill health. (A fine accompaniment for Ehrenreich on this subject would be Ordinary Life, Kathlyn Conway's memoir of surviving cancer with plenty of anger and not the slightest belief in that disease's transformative possibilities.)
Ehrenreich's work is invariably bracing, to say the least -- in part because she's a superb writer, in part because, as in her bestselling book Nickeled and Dimed and other works like Fear of Falling, she has a way of nailing the essential insecurity of life in a corporate/work world that has no pity to offer (but oodles of "positive thinking"). She's always had a wicked tendency to enter worlds, turn them upside down, and report back, as she did recently for the New York Times in a four-part series on poverty in post-meltdown America.
The rites of positive-thinking and the extravagant promises of better health and well-being which are inseparable from them, she soon discovered, were hardly confined to the world of cancer patients. In the ensuing years, she stumbled upon a multitude of worlds central to our lives -- from megachurches to mega-corporations -- in which an ideology of positive thinking ruled the roost. Of course, until the fall of 2008, we were also living through a gusher of positive thinking about an economy that -- so it was firmly believed -- could never go south.
As this piece is posted, Ehrenreich's newest book, Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America, is just being published. A full-scale report on the cult of positive thinking in America, its anti-Calvinist roots and present "successes," it represents Ehrenreich at her best. It's hard to read without wondering whether this country isn't, in many ways, just a giant con game run by spielmeisters, touters, and flim-flam artists.
Hardly less startling than finding herself with breast cancer was Barbara Ehrenreich's discovery of the "pink ribbon culture," of, that is, the enforced cheerfulness and positive thinking that accompanied it (and the teddy bears and "cornucopia of pink-ribbon-themed breast cancer products" which went with that). Back in 2001, she wrote a fierce, wonderful piece for Harper's Magazine, "Welcome to Cancerland," about her experience, and what to do with anger when it's equated with "negativity," and so ill health. (A fine accompaniment for Ehrenreich on this subject would be Ordinary Life, Kathlyn Conway's memoir of surviving cancer with plenty of anger and not the slightest belief in that disease's transformative possibilities.)
Ehrenreich's work is invariably bracing, to say the least -- in part because she's a superb writer, in part because, as in her bestselling book Nickeled and Dimed and other works like Fear of Falling, she has a way of nailing the essential insecurity of life in a corporate/work world that has no pity to offer (but oodles of "positive thinking"). She's always had a wicked tendency to enter worlds, turn them upside down, and report back, as she did recently for the New York Times in a four-part series on poverty in post-meltdown America.
The rites of positive-thinking and the extravagant promises of better health and well-being which are inseparable from them, she soon discovered, were hardly confined to the world of cancer patients. In the ensuing years, she stumbled upon a multitude of worlds central to our lives -- from megachurches to mega-corporations -- in which an ideology of positive thinking ruled the roost. Of course, until the fall of 2008, we were also living through a gusher of positive thinking about an economy that -- so it was firmly believed -- could never go south.
As this piece is posted, Ehrenreich's newest book, Bright-Sided: How the Relentless Promotion of Positive Thinking Has Undermined America, is just being published. A full-scale report on the cult of positive thinking in America, its anti-Calvinist roots and present "successes," it represents Ehrenreich at her best. It's hard to read without wondering whether this country isn't, in many ways, just a giant con game run by spielmeisters, touters, and flim-flam artists.
When removing a piece of the brain, location makes a world of difference. If the surgeon cuts one millimeter in the wrong direction, the patient may lose the ability to speak, or a pathway that controls thumb movement, or worse.
For five decades, neurosurgeons seeking to avoid damaging critical brain tissue have used the same technique to map the brain before surgery. Researchers at Albany Medical Center, however, are developing a new technique they hope will be quicker, safer and more accurate.
"It's passive, bed-side, real-time; it takes seconds," said Dr. Anthony L. Ritaccio, a neurologist and director of the epilepsy and human brain mapping program at Albany Med. Most important, he added, is that the technique can create an instant snapshot of brain activity by charting different parts of the brain as its cells fire.
For five decades, neurosurgeons seeking to avoid damaging critical brain tissue have used the same technique to map the brain before surgery. Researchers at Albany Medical Center, however, are developing a new technique they hope will be quicker, safer and more accurate.
"It's passive, bed-side, real-time; it takes seconds," said Dr. Anthony L. Ritaccio, a neurologist and director of the epilepsy and human brain mapping program at Albany Med. Most important, he added, is that the technique can create an instant snapshot of brain activity by charting different parts of the brain as its cells fire.
© SPL
MEG measures small electrical currents in nerve cells in the brain
MEG measures small electrical currents in nerve cells in the brain
Tinnitus is a condition where sounds are heard in one or both ears when there is no external source.
While doctors had thought tinnitus was generated by ear problems, they now believe it is generated in the brain.
The team at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit used a special scanner to map the locations in the brain.
They hope it will allow more targeted therapies to be developed.
© University of North Carolina School of Medicine
A new study suggests that a single gene, called GSK-3, controls the signals that determine how many neurons actually end up composing the brain.
A new study suggests that a single gene, called GSK-3, controls the signals that determine how many neurons actually end up composing the brain.
If the stem cells proliferate too much, they could grow out of control and produce a tumor. If they proliferate too little, there may not be enough cells to become the billions of neurons of the brain. Researchers at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine have now found that this critical balance rests in large part on a single gene, called GSK-3.
The finding suggests that GSK-3 controls the signals that determine how many neurons actually end up composing the brain. It also has important implications for patients with neuropsychiatric illness, as links have recently been drawn between GSK-3 and schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder.
© Tim Cochrane
Loud music can cause tinnitus
Loud music can cause tinnitus
New research suggests that tinnitus is linked to the brain and not just ear damage as previously thought.
Researchers at Detroit's Henry Ford Hospital have found that it is possible to define the area of the brain that is activated when a person is suffering from the condition, reports BBC News.
The results has led doctors to hope that they will be able to development new kinds of therapies for the condition, where sufferers hear sounds when there is no external source, often experienced as a hissing or beeping-style sound.
The researchers used Magnetoencephalography (MEG) scans to measure magnetic fields in subjects' brains as they played them simulated tinnitus sounds that matched the noises they usually suffer with.
© Ros/Stock.xChang
Even with all the medical breakthroughs, sometimes it's the body itself that fixes -- or compensates -- for what's wrong without us even knowing.
Take the extraordinary case of Michelle Mack. For years the Virginia woman's parents knew their daughter had special needs, but doctors could never pinpoint a diagnosis. Then at age 27 a MRI scan yielded a dramatic discovery: it showed that she was missing nearly all the left side of her brain. Doctors believe an in utero stroke likely caused the damage.
The finding almost didn't make sense because Mack, now 37, is able to do many of the things the left side of the brain typically controls, including speaking and reading. Her doctors could only come to one logical conclusion: her brain had somehow rewired itself to compensate for what was lost.
