Followers

Monday, January 26, 2009

'Warrior Gene' Predicts Aggressive Behavior After Provocation


Individuals with the so-called "warrior gene" display higher levels of aggression in response to provocation. (Credit: iStockphoto/Viorika Prikhodko)

Individuals with the so-called “warrior gene” display higher levels of aggression in response to provocation, according to new research co-authored by Rose McDermott, professor of political science at Brown University. In the experiment, which is the first to examine a behavioral measure of aggression in response to provocation, subjects were asked to cause physical pain to an opponent they believed had taken money from them by administering varying amounts of hot sauce.

The findings are published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In addition to McDermott, the research team included Dustin Tingley of Princeton University, Jonathan Cowden of the University of California–Santa Barbara, Giovanni Frazetto from the London School of Economics, and Dominic Johnson from the University of Edinburgh. Their experiment synthesized work in psychology and behavioral economics.

Monoamine oxidase A is an enzyme that breaks down important neurotransmitters in the brain, including dopamine, norepinephrine, and serotonin. The enzyme is regulated by monoamine oxidase A gene (MAOA). Humans have various forms of the gene, resulting in different levels of enzymatic activity. People with the low-activity form (MAOA-L) produce less of the enzyme, while the high-activity form (MAOA-H) produces more of the enzyme.

Several studies have found a correlation between the low-activity form of MAOA and aggression in observational and survey-based studies. Only about a third of people in Western populations have the low-activity form of MAOA. By comparison, low-activity MAOA has been reported to be much more frequent (approaching two-thirds of people) in some populations that had a history of warfare. This led to a controversy over MAOA being dubbed the “warrior gene.”

The PNAS paper is the first experimental test of whether MAOA-L individuals display higher levels of actual behavioral aggression in response to provocation. A total of 78 subjects took part in the experiment over networked computers (all were male students from the University of California–Santa Barbara). Each subject (A) first performed a vocabulary task in which they earned money. Then they were told that an anonymous partner (B), linked over the network, could choose to take some of their earnings away from them. The original subject (A) could then choose to punish the taker (B) by forcing them to eat unpleasantly hot (spicy) sauce — but they had to pay to do so, so administering punishment was costly. In reality, the “partner” who took money away was a computer, which allowed the researchers to control responses. No one actually ingested hot sauce.

Their results demonstrate that

  • Low-activity MAOA subjects displayed slightly higher levels of aggression overall than high-activity MAOA subjects.
  • There was strong evidence for a gene-by-environment interaction, such that MAOA is less associated with the occurrence of aggression in the low-provocation condition (when the amount of money taken was low), but significantly predicted aggression in a high-provocation situation (when the amount of money taken was high).

The results support previous research suggesting that MAOA influences aggressive behavior, with potentially important implications for interpersonal aggression, violence, political decision-making, and crime. The finding of genetic influences on aggression and punishment behavior also questions the recently proposed idea that humans are “altruistic” punishers, who willingly punish free-riders for the good of the group. These results support theories of cooperation that propose there are mixed strategies in the population. Some people may punish more than others, and there may be an underlying evolutionary logic for doing so.

Original here


Baby Beetles Get Through Water Efficiently, So Can Small Boats

By GreenerDesign Staff

PITTSBURGH, Pa. -- Inspired by the way beetle larvae wiggle to move across water, researchers at the University of Pittsburgh have developed a low-energy and low-maintenance system for moving small robots and boats in water.

The system, which uses electrical pulses in place of paddles, sails and motors, is designed for small boats and devices that monitor the water quality in reservoirs, oceans and other bodies of water. Such devices usually rely on propellers to move about.

Senior researcher Sung Kwon Cho was inspired to devise the system after reading about how beetle larvae make their way through water. Cho is also a professor of mechanical engineering and materials science in the university's Swanson School of Engineering.

To move across water, beetle larvae start off resting on the water, causing the surface tension to pull equally on all sides. To move forward, the beetles bend their backs downward, causing the tension behind them to change and the forward tension to pull them, using the energy within the water's surface to move them forward.



The electrical pulse system does the same thing, destabilizing the surface tension on one side or multiple sides of a small boat to propel it in the opposite direction or, as shown above, in a circle. In the above display, two electrowetting-on-dielectrics (EWOD) electrodes - indicated by the red circles - generate pulses, causing the boat to rotate.

The system has no moving parts, and the low-energy electrode that emits the pulse can be powered by batteries, radio waves or solar power.

Original here

Row over scheme to 'fertilise' oceans

By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor

Scientists are planning this week to start a highly controversial experiment in changing the composition of the oceans, in apparent contravention of international law.

The experiment – to be conducted in the Southern Ocean – aims to create a bloom of plankton so big that it will be visible from outer space. But, at the last minute, the scheme has sailed into an international storm as environmentalists have called for it to be abandoned. The researchers – mainly from Germany and India, but including two Britons – plan to add some 20 tons of iron sulphate to a 186-square-mile patch of ocean about half way between Cape Horn and the Cape of Good Hope, to demonstrate a way both of combating global warming and of saving the whale.

As the waters are short of iron, this is expected to lead to an explosive growth of plankton, which will take up carbon dioxide from the air. The scientists hope that, when the plankton die and their bodies sink deep into the ocean, they will take the carbon with them, keeping it out of the atmosphere for centuries. Applied on a large enough scale, they believe this could help stave off climate change, while increasing food for whales. Commercial firms have already announced plans to make money from such schemes.

But other scientists are deeply concerned that the practice could have devastating unintended effects on the oceans, including killing off large areas of sea, and releasing methane and nitrous oxide, which are even more potent causes of global warming. They also fear that the plankton could absorb sunlight, heating up surface waters and hastening climate change.

Last May the UN's Convention on Biological Diversity banned the practice, allowing exceptions only for "small-scale scientific research studies within coastal waters". Nevertheless, the expedition – jointly organised by the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research in Bremerhaven and the National Institute of Oceanography in Goa, India – set off this month.

Alarmed environmentalists, led by the Canada-based ETC Group, urged Germany's Environment Minister, Sigmar Gabriel, to stop the experiment. The German government suspended it while legal and environmental reviews were carried out, and the scientists expect to hear the result early this week.

Dr Richard Lampitt of the University of Southampton's National Oceanography Centre, which has two scientists on board, says: "We desperately need to make this sort of experiment if we are going to make rational decisions in the future."

The Alfred Wegener Institute accuses objectors of "indulging in disruptive activities merely to draw attention to themselves".

Original here