Canine Companionship: Humans bond with dogs as if they are children

Image via Buzzfeed

Nothing is stronger than the bond between a mother and child... and between dog and human? Although I have not personally experienced motherhood, I recently added a new family member; a four-month-old rescue puppy named Linus (after one of my role models and great chemical engineers, Linus Pauling). When he looks into my eyes my heart melts a little, and I just want to scoop him up and hug him. These feelings are helping me understand why people refer to their dogs as “fur babies,” showering them with toys, treats, costumes, and even pushing them in strollers.

My new puppy, Linus

Now science explains why dogs really are “Man’s Best Friend.” When people refer to their dogs as their kids, they aren’t too far off. A new study in Science shows that humans and dogs actually share a unique bond, mediated through the love hormone, oxytocin. What makes dogs so special to us, and how did this symbiotic relationship begin?

Dogs were the first animal to be domesticated by humans

Image credit Dan Burr via Flickr

The dog-human relationship has a long history. Dogs were domesticated by humans before any other plant or animal, including food crops or livestock like horses and cattle. Scientists know that dogs evolved from the gray wolf, however they are still trying to figure out where and when they became friends with humans. The consensus among scientists is that dogs and humans began their relationship somewhere between 15,000 and 30,000 years ago during the Paleolithic era.

Charles Darwin, the man responsible for the theory of evolution, theorized that dogs initiated their relationship with humans, following them to scavenge their leftover animal carcasses and scraps. Eventually, dogs evolved to be more and more trusting of humans. The less fearful and friendlier dogs lived longer, evolving to become the human-like pets we know today that sit on our furniture, ride in cars, coexist (hopefully) with our other pets, and understand our language; although, we must remember they still have some wolf-like instincts from their ancient ancestors.

Image via quickmeme.com 

Dogs have evolved to be the most responsive animal to human body language. For example, dogs are the only animal that understand what humans mean when they point at something with their hand - “look at that.” They respond to human cues and words, along with eye contact. Not even other primates can understand our complicated social cues to that extent. Why are dogs so unique in this aspect? A new study from researchers in Japan shows the feelings of companionship we have towards dogs are a result of direct eye contact.

Dogs manipulate the human feelings by staring at us

Image credit: B Rosen via Flickr

When dogs and humans stare at each other, the love hormone, oxytocin, is produced. This relationship has evolved to create a bond between human and dog similar to the bond a mother and child have. Oxytocin is related to the feelings of love and comfort between humans, which you can read more about in this Valentine’s Day post. A new study by a group at Azabu University in Japan has linked the oxytocin hormone to the bond that humans and dogs have.

Increased levels of oxytocin are positively associated with increased social behavior towards both humans and other dogs. According to several studies, after dogs and their owners interact, oxytocin levels increased in both the dog and its owner. The Japanese researchers, however, showed that oxytocin increased the most after dogs and their owners share a mutual gaze for a sustained period of time, more than talking or touching.

To further solidify their findings, the researchers also artificially administered oxytocin to dogs and then had them interact with their owners. Dogs given oxytocin stared at their owners more than the dogs not administered oxytocin. Following the interaction, the dogs given oxytocin and their owners both showed an increased production of the hormone after the interaction. This suggests something known as a positive feedback loop, meaning that the more oxytocin present, the more gazing, and the more oxytocin is produced. In other words, it’s like a snowball effect, the more you and your dog stare at each other, the more love there is and the more you want to stare at each other.

A dog and owner gazing at each other

The special bond between a dog and its human is unique to its owner. Researchers also observed dogs interacting with humans who were not their owners, and oxytocin levels were unchanged. Not only is oxytocin production unique to the owner, it is unique to dogs as a species. Wolves reared by humans were studied along with their owners, and no relationship was observed between eye contact and oxytocin levels.

All of these observations suggest dogs have a unique neurological pathway specific to human bonding, which they have evolved over tens of thousands of years with us. They have also evolved to have adorable child-like characteristics to give us the “feels” for them, to put it unscientifically. These findings could also explain why aggressive behavior of dogs towards humans is correlated to their interactions with humans and not their breed. My only question is, why am I attached to my cat in a similar way, and when will he and my dog become friends?

For more information, check out this podcast from Science. 

Human health benefits from furry companions

Oxytocin is currently studied as a treatment for several mental disorders associated with decreased levels of the hormone. To treat these diseases, researchers are artificially administering oxytocin to improve social symptoms of disorders like autism and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Understanding how dogs can chemically alter our brains gives us an understanding of how and why service animals are beneficial. Assistance dogs can stimulate the production of oxytocin in people suffering from mental disorders.

Image via The Daily Republic

Oxytocin has also been studied to treat other mental disorders like depression, anxiety, and stress. More research is needed to understand more about this link, but for now I will take it as a sign to spend more quality time with my newest 4-legged friend, especially when I am stressed out. So at the end of the day, it might be mentally beneficial to take your furry friend on a walk or jog, play some ball, snuggle on the couch… or just stare at each other.

Image via Giphy

Cheers to your brain and thanks for reading!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on blog posts and other science findings!

Fracking and climate change: solution or cause?

Hydraulic fracturing, better known as “fracking,” has reshaped energy in North America in the last decade - making it possible to extract oil and natural gas from traditionally hard areas to drill. Whether the emergence of this technique is for better or worse is still a hotly debated topic.

Proponents argue that along with more affordable and domestic energy, fracking decreases greenhouse gas emissions, therefore slowing climate change.  A recent model by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory shows this claim to be untrue, and that more likely, fracking will increase greenhouse gas emissions in the long run.

What is Fracking?

Fracking is a technique developed in 1947 to extract natural gas trapped in rocks. Pumping a pressurized liquid into the ground cracks (or fractures - where the name “fracking” originates) the rock, allowing natural gas to be released. Fracking liquid typically consists of sand and chemicals suspended in water, which holds the fracture open once the rock is cracked.  Fracking offers another option for extracting fossil fuels that are more abundant in North America, so proponents advocate that it will reduce dependence on Middle East countries for energy.

How fracking works. Image credit USA Today

Fracking is a controversial technique because of its potential environmental impact. Concerns have grown over ground water contamination (people's faucet water actually lighting on fire) from the undisclosed chemicals in fracking liquid and water shortages due to the high volume fracking demands. In addition, researchers have shown that fracking might be responsible for causing small-scale earthquakes that could lead to more serious long-term consequences.

Faucet water near some fracking sites has become flammable.

Will fracking change greenhouse gas emissions?

Some reports have suggested that because natural gas can replace coal as an electricity source it will reduce carbon dioxide emissions and so can be thought of as a climate change solution. But that claim assumes that natural gas only replaces coal and that energy consumption remains at current levels. Depending on the energy policy of the country, this is a generous assumption. 

The PNNL study showed that in the likely event of an increase in energy consumption, fracking for natural gas will not decrease carbon dioxide emissions and is not a plausible solution to climate change.

Instead, they found that having more affordable access to natural gas would increase climate forcing (human-imposed disruption to the climate) between 0.3 percent decrease and a 7 percent increase, which is far less than the 80 percent decrease climate experts are recommending.

Integrating energy, economy and climate systems, the researchers predicted long-term changes in carbon dioxide emissions. In the study, five separate models were used to demonstrate how greenhouse gas emissions would change based on several scenarios of natural gas production and use. Although the exact amounts vary, every model showed that increasing natural gas supply through unconventional extraction methods (fracking) does not reduce carbon dioxide emissions because of two effects: natural gas replacing alternative forms of energy, and the increase in energy use as a result of the decrease in price.

In the most realistic case, natural gas would substitute for 18 percent of coal and 17 percent of other lower carbon energy, such as solar and wind power. Substituting coal for natural gas will decrease carbon dioxide emissions. However natural gas also costs less than wind, solar, fuel cell, hydropower, or nuclear power, so energy consumption will shift from these technologies to natural gas. Using natural gas in place of renewable sources will significantly increase atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Furthermore, when energy (natural gas in this case) is available at a low cost, more people will use it. The more natural gas people use, the more carbon dioxide is emitted. Even when the PNNL model predicted that energy policy effectively banned coal so that natural gas replaced only coal, the carbon dioxide emissions are only reduced by 6 percent; the best case scenario.

Carbon dioxide isn’t the only climate-warming gas (greenhouse gas) that natural gas releases. Greenhouse gas is most commonly thought of as carbon dioxide; however, natural gas itself (methane) is actually has over 20 times more climate warming potential than carbon dioxide_. Another environmental concern is that fracking will result in more gas leaks during drilling, extraction, and transportation (known as fugitive methane emissions). When modeling for the likely increase in fugitive methane, greenhouse gas emissions increase between 7 percent and 20 percent.

Carbon dioxide isn't the only greenhouse gas.

The authors of the study conclude that: ”Abundant gas does not discernibly reduce climate forcing … and, under high fugitive emission assumptions, three models reported increased climate forcing of more than 5%.” Evidence reported in this study shows yet another environmental concern posed by fracking. Proponents and oil companies cannot claim that natural gas is a sufficient solution to reducing the impacts of climate change.

Will Fracking Help Us Become Energy Independent?

You have probably noticed the recent drop in prices at the pump. OPEC has declared a war on fracking by dropping oil prices to a level that deems North American companies unprofitable. The type of oil that is extracted from fracking is more expensive to produce than oil produced by OPEC. The United States is currently producing more oil than any OPEC country, so in order for them to drive North American countries out of business, oil prices will need to be low for a very long time.

The environmental consequence of this is consumers will continue to increase their energy consumption because of the lower cost, which in turn will continue producing more greenhouse gas emissions. Not only is the U.S. still suffering the consequences of OPEC controlling the U.S.’s energy production, but we are now contributing more to climate change than before.

Fracking is an innovative technology, but is not a solution to our climate and energy problems. A real solution will be found after continuing to invest our efforts and research into renewable sources of energy that can be produced in the United States. We can use the type of innovation to come up with a longer term solution to energy independence and climate change. That seems easier than exploring for a new colder planet to live on.

Scene from Interstellar. Image credit: Giphy.

Cheers to your brain and thanks for reading!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on blog posts and other science findings!

No Shave November: A New Discovery to Treat Prostate Cancer

Movember: A moustache (started in England) growing charity event in November that raises funds and awareness for men's health. Source 

During the month of November men everywhere opt out of shaving and sport their best mustaches in support of men’s health. As if it were fate, scientists published discovery this month that could prevent tumors from spreading. Researchers found a way to stop the body from producing a molecule found in new blood vessels that result in new prostate cancer cells, basically stopping tumors from spreading any further.

What is a tumor and what is prostate cancer?

A tumor (or a neoplasm) is an abnormal growth of tissue. This is a result of cells that have an abnormal growth pattern. Some tumors are not cancer, known as benign tumors, which do not spread to other areas of the body. Malignant tumors, on the other hand, are tumors that have the potential to spread and invade other parts of the body. If they spread to vital organs, cancer becomes deadly.

Tumors need a constant supply of nutrient-rich blood to spread. Blood is supplied to tumors through a mechanism known as angiogenesis: the process in which new blood vessels are formed from old ones.

The process of angiogenesis.

Prostate cancer is a malignant tumor that develops in the prostate gland. Many times the cancer cells spread from the prostate to other parts of the body through lymph nodes. Symptoms of prostate cancer include pain in the pelvis or back when urinating, difficulty urinating, and blood in the urine.

Prostate cancer is the second most diagnosed cancer in males and the sixth leading cause of death. More than 80% of men will develop prostate cancer by the age of 80, and is most commonly found in men over 50. It is one of the deadlier cancers with a lower cure rate than testicular cancer. If caught early, survival rate is much higher. Movember and other efforts have brought awareness to early detection as well as raising money for prostate cancer research.

How have scientists figured out a way to prevent prostate cancer from spreading?

Cancer treatment is a research priority throughout the world, and recently researchers may have discovered a breakthrough in ways to treat it. If the blood supply to a tumor is cut-off, the tumor will stop growing; the same way a car will stop going if it’s gasoline supply is cut-off. Scientists from University of Bristol and the University of Nottingham identified molecules called SRPK1 that play a vital role in angiogenesis.

Using samples of prostate cancer in mice, the researchers found that SRPK1 levels increase as the cancer progresses and spreads more aggressively. They also found that if they decrease levels of SRPK1 in mice, they also inhibited tumor growth.

Figure from study. Arrows indicate blood vessels. The figure on the right shows a reduction in tumors when SRPK1 is suppressed.

The inhibitor for SRPK1 was developed by Biotech company Exonate as a drug treatment for diseases that display abnormal vessel development, like macular degeneration (which causes blindness). When the scientists injected mice with the drug, the tumor growth was inhibited because vasculature growth was stopped. Because this drug targets vasculature growth, it can likely be used to treat other types of cancer that spread with similar mechanisms.

This new discovery is incredibly promising, not only for the treatment of prostate cancer, but many other deadly diseases. Whether or not it is a result of fundraising from Movember, the awareness that Movember and No Shave November have created for men’s health is a positive. So please gentlemen, keep growing those mustaches and checking your health!

Cheers to your brain and thanks for reading!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on blog posts and other science findings!

P.S. if you want to know about the science of beards, the guys at ASAPScience made this awesome video:

Midterm Elections: The New Senate and the Future of Science

Source

In case you didn’t hear, there was an election last week. Now that we’ve all had a chance to cool off, or maybe celebrate, exactly what impact a Republican Senate majority will have, besides not being forced to endure political ads for the next year and a half?

Grumpy cat is obviously happy about the end of the election

The bipolar trend of scientific issues like climate change, nutrition, and energy is dangerous to our country, and even the world.  Despite the incredibly partisan politics in the U.S., conservatives are not always bad for science, and Democrats are not always good for it. Overall, Democrats and Republicans both support funding science and technology, but differ on which science to fund, and how much money to give it.

As my first ever post outlined, science funding is necessary to keep the U.S. a world leader and to reduce the budget deficit. Historically, Republicans and Democrats alike have supported funding agencies like NASA and the NSF across the board. However, as congress has become more polarized, science funding has been another victim of Democrats versus Republicans, instead of Democrats and Republicans. But what are the implications of the newly elected Republican Senate?

A new majority means committees in the senate are shifted from Democratic chairs to Republican chairs, and there is a new Senate Majority Leader. These positions will become official in January. Who are they, and what will they do for or against science?

Senate Majority Leader: Mitch McConnell

The new Senate Majority Leader will be Mitch McConnell, a senator from Kentucky.  The Senate Majority Leader is elected by his or her party, and serves as the chief Senate spokesperson. He or she is also given priority to speak on the floor.

Mitch McConnell has vowed to fight Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, which have been a large part of the President’s climate change agenda. McConnell wants to fight any EPA restrictions on carbon dioxide, which could potentially prevent the shut down some coal-fired power plants in his home state.

McConnell is making it his priority to limit the power of the EPA 

In addition, McConnell and his Republican senate majority are demanding the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, which would transport oil from Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. McConnell is strongly in favor of fossil fuel development over supporting the development of biofuels and other renewable energy, which could have lasting harmful environmental effects.

Appropriations Committee: Thad Cochran

The Appropriations committee is responsible for passing basically all Senate-approved science funding. They oversee the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and NASA. Luckily, Thad Cochran supports increased funding for NASA, and was one of few Republicans who voted to protect ocean ecosystems. 

The Appropriations Committee oversees a number of subcommittees. Richard Shelby will head the NASA, NIST, and NOAA subcommittee. Shelby is a self-proclaimed supporter of biomedical research after his wife suffered from lupus. He believes funding the NIH will help the economy prosper. Jerry Moran will chair the NIH subcommittee. Moran is also a self-proclaimed supporter of increased science funding, and was recently awarded the Champion of Science Award from the University of Kansas.

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: Lamar Alexander

This committee is in charge of federal education and biomedical research policy. Lamar Alexander served as George W. Bush's secretary of education, and was largely criticized for offering more support to private universities than public. However, Alexander has a small, but positive record on science. The Science Coalition awarded him the Champion of Science Award in 2008, and a species of springtail was named after him for his funding support for the research used in its discovery. He is considered one of the most bipartisan republicans in congress.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation: John Thune or Ted Cruz

This committee is in charge of all nonmedical civilian science policy. It supports funding for green technology, space sciences, atmospheric and weather sciences research and development. Sources are conflicting on which of these senators will be the new chair of the committee.

Many have speculated that Ted Cruz, a known and loud climate skeptic, will be the new chair. He has questioned scientists, claiming (he is not a scientist, but…) their data does not support their argument He has pushed for a reduction in NASA funding. And perhaps most notably, Cruz was the face of the government shutdown that continues to be detrimental to scientific funding.

John Thune has  been named by AAAS as the likely new chair. Thune is slightly friendlier on environmental issues than Cruz, as he is one of the eight Republicans who believe in climate change (out of 278). He has mostly voted down climate change legislation, but some of his votes have been against oil companies. Though he is not the ideal person to chair a committee to fund renewable energy and climate research, he is better than Ted Cruz.

Environmental Public Works: James Inhofe

The Environmental Public Works committee oversees the EPA and its regulations as well as climate change legislation. Unfortunately, James Inhofe is arguably the most adamant global warming skeptic in the entire Senate. He wrote a book titled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. While I would never recommend this book to anybody, I do recommend reading the reviews on Amazon for some free entertainment.

Stephen Colbert summarizes “The Republicans’ Inspiring Climate Change Message” 

 Ultimately, Inhofe taking over the chair of this committee is the end of climate change legislation in the senate. He and Mitch McConnell have made it their goal to limit any power the EPA has to help slow climate change, which would devastate any progress we have made on the issue.

Energy and Natural Resources: Lisa Murkowski

This committee oversees public lands and energy development (think National Parks and the Bureau of Land Management).  Murkowski has already begun making plans to permit drilling on federal lands and waters. She also would like to get rid of federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing and leave those regulations up to the states.

Murkowski has publicly endorsed the Keystone Pipeline and has called for the Commerce Department to end a 39-year-old ban on crude oil exports. In addition, Murkowski supports coal remaining as a key energy source in the U.S., which contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions of any fossil fuel.

Despite Murkowski’s plans to expand fossil fuel development, she has acknowledged climate change and has endorsed incentive-based energy efficiency programs instead of carbon reduction. She has also indicated that she supports research and development of "technology neutral" energy storage technology to prevent political favors to certain industries.

So, what does this mean for the next 2 years of science?

Although some of these outlooks are grim, some of the new Republican leaders will continue supporting science at or above the rates of their Democratic counterparts. Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continue to hand out reports of the damaging effects of climate change and how we need continue to increase efforts to battle it over the next decade.

If there is enough public pressure to take action on such an important issue, perhaps political party will have no influence over the actions politicians will take on climate change. Contact your Senators, your House members, and your President, demanding that this issue be taken more seriously. As I have stated before, our future quite literally depends on it.

Although Senate probably won’t increase scientific research funding, they also probably won’t make any more cuts to it with the current Republican committee chairs. Committee members for non-environmental related funding are strong supporters of biomedical funding, and will continue to advocate for it.

The good news is more attention is being given to scientific issues, and scientists are starting to engage more with policy makers and the public. If the trend continues, I believe progress will be made before this congressional term is up in 2016, which is something we can all look forward to… hopefully.

Slow clap for effort?

Thanks for reading and cheers to your brain!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on blog posts and other science findings!