Olfactory researchers win Nobel Prize

[jvkohl]

Colleagues Richard Axel and Linda Buck will receive their prize in December. Here's the news story. Feel free to

substitute olfaction/pheromones for smell/odors to get a better feel for where the award may lead others.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp... <br /> 2806

Here's a link to Richard Axel's site...



http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/neurobeh/axel/

...from which he links to my site "Scent

of Eros"
aka



http://cpmcnet.columbia.edu/dept/neu...xel/links.html

Yes, I'm

bragging--how many Nobel Laureates link to any info about human

pheromones?

JVK

[culturalblonde]

Yes, I'm bragging--how

many Nobel Laureates link to any info about human pheromones?

Way to go! You have a right to brag. Thanks

for sharing the information... very interesting.

[writerguy]

First, JVK, hope the link from

Axel Labs brings you good things, public attention and peer respect. I'd brag too, in fact, I'd issue a press

release and tell the world! And my mother in law.

Second, I heard this announced on NPR (that's the boring

high-brow radio stations at the bottom end of the dial for you kids). Richard Harris, NPR's science correspondent,

ended his report by saying, "One thing that intrigues me is that both these labs (Axel's and Buck's) are trying to

figure out how pheromones work -- if there are parallels between smell and pheromones. No one's proven that

pheromones work in humans, but if they do, maybe that could explain that mysterious feeling we call 'animal

magnetism." Link:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=4059963

Not that I doubt

another journalist's word, (lol) but is that the case, Dr. Kohl? That "no one's proven that pheromones work in

humans" ?

I mean, massive DIHLs and mature professional women getting all giggly and hair-flippy is prima

facie evidence enough for me, but I'm just a layman. Has anyone actually proven pheromone attraction in

humans?

Kip
the Writerguy

[CptKipling]

I think the point is; define

proof?

Anecdotal evidence probably isn't what they are looking for, but for us it is. In fact, it's

beneficial for us to do believe it.

[CollegeStudent]

Even though this is good

news, I still hope mones dont become mainstream. There are ups and downs of them becoming more and more popular,

but I like em "in the background" as they are now.

[Bruce]

Wow! That is great. Nice link too.

Very impressive. I wonder what they will do with their $1.3 million.... Put it all into research???

:-)

B

[jvkohl]

Not that I

doubt another journalist's word, (lol) but is that the case, Dr. Kohl? That "no one's proven that pheromones work

in humans" ?

There is still considerable debate regarding use of the term "human pheromone." Of

course this means "proof" that something not well defined "works" will be difficult. One group continues to show

that something happens when the human VNO is stimulated; other groups show the human VNO is not required for a

response to putative pheromones. To simplify all issues, in an unpublished review on sexual orientation, I defined a

human pheromone as a chemical that elicits a luteinizing (LH) hormone response in a member of the opposite sex.

(since the LH response to mammalian pheromones is well-known, and does not require a functional VNO). The LH

response is repeatedly linked to behavioral change. So, one could reasonably expect that since, in women,

androstenol elicits an LH change, that it also elicits a behavioral change (androstenol is found in male axillary

secretions that have been linked to improved mood in women). Does mood improvement change behavior? Is it really the

androstenol that alters both LH and mood? If so, is androstenol a pheromone? Too many questions that require too big

a leap of faith for some hard-core scientists.

Still, it seems appropriate to use a bit of logic, since you

can logically get from axillary secretions containing androstenol to the LH change and to mood change (which is why

pheromone -enhanced products containing androstenol can be expected to have a positive influence on the

mood/behavior of women). But, no matter how much anecdotal evidence you read about the effectiveness of such

products, hard-core scientists demand a formal double blind study with appropriate measures and statistics to show

beyond the shadow of reasonable doubt that a human pheromone causes a change in behavior. And, as soon as you try

to test humans, you introduce many more variables than can be statistically eliminated.

The only real hope I

see on the horizon is that researchers like Axel and Buck will find more proof that human pheromones influence human

behavior--the same way that consciously perceived odors influence behavior, which means they will provide details on

the receptor/signal interaction that leads to the LH change, and also link the LH change to a specific behavioral

change. Nobel laureates tend to think "outside the box" or, minimally come up with unique ways to approach a

problem. Since Richard and Linda have already made their mark with consciously perceived odors, they are quite

likely to be at the forefront of some exciting new data on human

pheromones.

JVK