Comparing dogs to humans.

[jvkohl]

The

latest:

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061211/full/061211-18.html

An earlier comparison

from: Dobb, E. (1989) The scents around us. Sciences, November-December, 46-53. "What human beings lack in acuity

they make up in powers of discrimination, which rival those of any other mammal." (p. 51)

Hope we hear more

from Archetypical Hybrid (HEC) about the importance of the (reportedly non-existent) human VNO when it comes to

comparisons like this one. Personally, I think he's "barking up the wrong

tree."

JVK

[Bruce]

OK, you two... You know the rules.

No punching below the belt. Keep it clean. Keep your sense of humour. Shake hands. Stuff like that. :-)

Nice

article.

[jvkohl]

...Keep your sense of

humour....

I hope you thought the "barking up the wrong tree" was humorous. In the context of such

comparisons, it made me laugh at myself for even thinking of it.

JVK

[Gegogi]

I believe that would be termed

"tongue in cheek" humor. It works better in person than in writing. But if he is "barking up the wrong tree,"

wouldn't that make him the "lone wolf" of pheromone researchers? [sorry]

[belgareth]

OK, you two... You

know the rules. No punching below the belt. Keep it clean. Keep your sense of humour. Shake hands. Stuff like that.

:-)

Nice article.

Reading the level of remarks by several members I'm begining to get the

impression that there is some reason that they don't want to discover anything new. That's pretty typical of what

I am seeing here, an utter refusal to even think about the possibility that anything other than what has already

been concluded could possibly exist. The nasty, rude remarks are very typical of that mentality, not of real pros in

any field.

Thankfully, not everybody looks at the world that way, otherwise we'd still think the earth was

flat and the universe orbited it.

[jvkohl]

Reading the level

of remarks by several members I'm begining to get the impression that there is some reason that they don't want to

discover anything new.

My citation of Dobb 1989 could as easily have been presented as something new

from the article: "Shepherd has argued that although we have fewer odour receptors than other animals, we may

compensate for this with an improved ability to analyse scent information with our large brains." -citation to 2004.

Seventeen years later, he's parroting Dobb's "What human beings lack in acuity they make up in powers of

discrimination, which rival those of any other mammal."

Those who were unaware of Dobb's 1989 review might

think that Shepherd 2004, is saying something new--just as those who have not followed human pheromone research

during the past 15 years might think that researchers are waiting to find out something new about the human VNO. But

I don't know of any researcher who is waiting. Coincidentally (perhaps?), I've cited a more recent review by

Shepherd in my forthcoming journal article/book

chapter:
----------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd (2006) has summarized recent

olfactory/pheromonal research findings and clarified concerns with regards to an ongoing debate about the presence

or absence of a functional human vomeronasal organ (VNO). Both the main olfactory pathway and VNO-enabled accessory

olfactory pathway process pheromones, so there is no need for a human VNO. Further, he stated that “We have much

more to learn about how intimately neuroendocrine functions, controlled by pheromones, acting through our noses,

interact with other operations within the brain to control human behaviour and cognition (p. 151).”


-----------------------------------------------------------

If we contrast Shepherd's (new)-- no need

for a human VNO--to older product marketing that focuss on VNO activation, we can see the difference between

marketing and research. Shepherd specifically mentions "neuroendocrine functions, controlled by pheromones." This

where human VNO researchers/marketers have eliminated themselves from both the peer-review process (recognized

research) and from professional consideration. After more than a decade of human VNO research, no direct connection

between the human VNO and neuroendocrine function (e.g., a hormone response) has been found.

The only

measurable biological link between pheromones and behavior is a change in hormone levels caused by the pheromones.

If the connection between the human VNO and a hormone response hasn't been found, it's likely that there isn't

any connection to be found. This means that it's time to focus on the connection between pheromones and

hormones--as is being done now with humans.

Perhaps we can return to human VNO research if something new

suggests there is such a thing as a functional human VNO. But, personally and professionally, I see no need at this

time to re-examine the product-linked data, and no need to consider any more claims associated with a human

VNO.

Though some people may not want to discover anything new, there may also be some people who do not want

to continue to discuss "old news". If we have the same abilities as dogs have when it comes to our sense of

smell--as indicated in the article--there should be more research done on how this ability influences us. That's

where current research is headed--after a lengthy delay that could be attributed to time spent on human VNO

research.

An additional consideration is the first author of the journal article that is the basis for the

news article responded (in minutes) to my request for a preprint or reprint--and I now have a .pdf copy. I can now

compare his response to the response from those who tell us: studies show this, but we can't release our data, or

tell you where and when it might someday be published, or who's involved in the research. The choice to me is

clear, I can either wait 2 years to see if anything supports product claims, or wait from a few minutes to a few

days to get the latest published findings.


JVK

[jvkohl]

I believe that would

be termed "tongue in cheek" humor. It works better in person than in writing. But if he is "barking up the wrong

tree," wouldn't that make him the "lone wolf" of pheromone researchers? [sorry]

My "picture" of the

"lone wolf" is more akin to one that is howling at the moon (i.e., in relative darkness, and making a lot of noise.)



Does anyone know why wolves are characteristically portrayed this way? Some new research suggests that there

may be daily and nightly rhythms to olfactory processing. Perhaps reduced nightly ability in wolves becomes

disorienting and they feel threatened by anything that sheds light on their

environment.

JVK
.com

[belgareth]

My citation of

Dobb 1989 could as easily have been presented as something new from the article: "Shepherd has argued that although

we have fewer odour receptors than other animals, we may compensate for this with an improved ability to analyse

scent information with our large brains." -citation to 2004. Seventeen years later, he's parroting Dobb's "What

human beings lack in acuity they make up in powers of discrimination, which rival those of any other mammal."



Those who were unaware of Dobb's 1989 review might think that Shepherd 2004, is saying something new--just as

those who have not followed human pheromone research during the past 15 years might think that researchers are

waiting to find out something new about the human VNO. But I don't know of any researcher who is waiting.

Coincidentally (perhaps?), I've cited a more recent review by Shepherd in my forthcoming journal article/book

chapter:
----------------------------------------------------------
Shepherd (2006) has summarized recent

olfactory/pheromonal research findings and clarified concerns with regards to an ongoing debate about the presence

or absence of a functional human vomeronasal organ (VNO). Both the main olfactory pathway and VNO-enabled accessory

olfactory pathway process pheromones, so there is no need for a human VNO. Further, he stated that “We have much

more to learn about how intimately neuroendocrine functions, controlled by pheromones, acting through our noses,

interact with other operations within the brain to control human behaviour and cognition (p. 151).”


-----------------------------------------------------------

If we contrast Shepherd's (new)-- no need for a

human VNO--to older product marketing that focuss on VNO activation, we can see the difference between marketing and

research. Shepherd specifically mentions "neuroendocrine functions, controlled by pheromones." This where human VNO

researchers/marketers have eliminated themselves from both the peer-review process (recognized research) and from

professional consideration. After more than a decade of human VNO research, no direct connection between the human

VNO and neuroendocrine function (e.g., a hormone response) has been found.

The only measurable biological link

between pheromones and behavior is a change in hormone levels caused by the pheromones. If the connection between

the human VNO and a hormone response hasn't been found, it's likely that there isn't any connection to be found.

This means that it's time to focus on the connection between pheromones and hormones--as is being done now with

humans.

Perhaps we can return to human VNO research if something new suggests there is such a thing as a

functional human VNO. But, personally and professionally, I see no need at this time to re-examine the

product-linked data, and no need to consider any more claims associated with a human VNO.

Though some people may

not want to discover anything new, there may also be some people who do not want to continue to discuss "old news".

If we have the same abilities as dogs have when it comes to our sense of smell--as indicated in the article--there

should be more research done on how this ability influences us. That's where current research is headed--after a

lengthy delay that could be attributed to time spent on human VNO research.

An additional consideration is the

first author of the journal article that is the basis for the news article responded (in minutes) to my request for

a preprint or reprint--and I now have a .pdf copy. I can now compare his response to the response from those who

tell us: studies show this, but we can't release our data, or tell you where and when it might someday be

published, or who's involved in the research. The choice to me is clear, I can either wait 2 years to see if

anything supports product claims, or wait from a few minutes to a few days to get the latest published findings.




JVK
(http://)

I am referring to the snotty

attitudes only. You and I have talked before and you know very well that I am not going to judge the merits of the

science. But I am not going to allow you to make personal attacks either.

I do not know if HEC is full of crap

and I do not know if you are and I do not care. Like I said before, argue all you like but keep it professional.