</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
People don\'t even think pheromones work, so to
ban them would be to admit that they do...how interesting a predicament this raises...wow, I just blew somebody\'s
mind... /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif Maybe it was mine.
<hr /></blockquote><font
class=\"post\">
Some very high ranking behavioral development specialists still don\'t think that the concept
of pheromones should be applied to humans. Others are threatened by extending the concept to humans. A huge threat,
in my opinion, is extending aspects of human chemical communication to include how pheromones work in human sexual
orientation. I\'ve attempted to publish my journal article on this topic in two prominent journals, and been
rejected twice for reasons expressed succinctly as \"we don\'t think it works that way\" or \"a more critical
review of the data is required.\" It\'s starting to annoy me. Here\'s my follow-up letter in response to the
latest rejection notice.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thank you for your
comments/criticisms of my submission. The issues you note were anticipated. My additional comments are meant only to
briefly address these issues. Namely:
</font><blockquote><font class=\"small\">Quote:</font><hr />
... the
level of scholarship, particularly the completeness and even-handedness of the literature review seemed
questionable. The referee, a competent and, just as important, REPRESENTATIVE members of the biobehavioral science
community concurred with my misgivings, and I accordingly did not send the ms. for formal review. The reviewer
felt the paper to be grounded in \"well-established aspects of hormones in development\" but felt there was little
critical evaluation of the research described, attention to failures to replicate, and the like.
<hr
/></blockquote><font class=\"post\">
If I had proposed an unsubstantiated mammalian model in which visual input
somehow directly links the social environment to the gene-cell-tissue-organ-organ system pathway to hormonal and
behavioral change, would reviewers would ask for a critical evaluation of the research described? I had hoped
reviewers would realize that there is no data -- let alone replicate studies -- that directly link visual input to
the neuroendocrinology of sexual behavior/orientation. Simply put, the visual link is not grounded in any \"well
established aspects of hormones in development.\" Nevertheless, the visual link \"attitude\" about human physical
attraction/sexuality prevails, and the mammalian olfactory link continues to prompt the need for more critical
evaluation.
I welcome the day when reveiwers begin to ask authors of papers detailing aspects of affiliative
behavior or other potentially sexual behaviors to include some information about the psychophysiology of the
developmental processes that are involved. We might then all begin to realize that our mammalian olfactory heritage
prevails, and that we only think we are responding to visual input because, unlike other mammals, we can think.
It is unfortunate that [ ] will not be the means by which the visual/olfactory approach to human sexual
orientation is thoughtfully addressed. I had hoped that [ ] reviewers would realize that all other proposed
sensory links to hormones and behavior should be critically evaluated, and that, minimally, the visual model might
thereby be compared with the olfactory model. If critical evaluation is needed, I believe it should be critical
evaluation of another model (is there one?) rather than requesting even more support of the only likely model
linking genetic nature and social-environmental nurture: mammalian olfaction.
-----------------------------------------------------
Does anyone think I\'m being to harsh?