Best case: VNO is a
minor but not insignificant contributor to human communication. More work by independent groups is needed to confirm
the reported electrical and hormonal responses. The expression of a vomeronasal-type receptor gene in humans raises
the possibility that such genes may underlie chemosensitivity in the vomeronasal region.
Worst case: The VNO
is absent or if present is not chemosensitive nor necessarily functional in communication. The evidence for
chemosensitivity is poorly documented and has not all been subject to effective peer review. The evidence for a
communication function could be artifactual.
Opinion: The EVG constitutes evidence for a selective and
sensitive response to human-derived chemicals located in the region of the VNO. Systemic autonomic responses and
emotional changes elicited by stimulation in this region suggest some chemosensitivity, even though the anatomical
substrate is difficult to demonstrate and seems unlikely to be conventional VSNs. If we didn?t have the positive
evidence from EVG, autonomic and psychological responses, reasonable scientific judgment would assign the role of
detecting human-derived chemicals that might be involved in chemical communication to the main olfactory system.
However, ignoring the evidence for vomeronasal function because most of it comes with commercial baggage is not a
rational scientific response in the absence of evidence for error, bias or fraud...
Bookmarks