Vintage Sexism: Pop Science from Centuries Past

Google Book Search has recently added a massive collection of vintage Popular Science magazines dating back to the 1800's and, throughout the decades, most issues spend a considerable number of pages dedicated to the controversial questions of Lady Brains and The Woman Question. Here are some classics:

From May 1872 (p. 87): "...excellent suggestions are frequently made by those who are not fitted by Nature to carry their own ideas into operation. This is especially true in the case of women, who, if they were to devote their whole energies to science or politics, would do violence to their physical organization." (Read: oh noes, if we let them have power or education, their titties will fall off!)

From May 1872 (p. 91): "Women, however, with intellects truly masculine, are, and have always been, more rare than women with masculine development of muscles. There are few, if any, distinctively masculine pursuits in which any woman has ever succeed..."

From October 1872 (p. 165): "It is a lamentable truth that the troubles which respectable, hard-working married women of the working-class undergo are more trying to the health, and detrimental to the looks, than any of the irregularities of the harlot's career."

From March 1872 (p. 553): "It is true that the actually existing generation of women do not dislike their position. The consciousness of this haunts Mr. Mill [as he argues for women's rights] throughout the whole of his argument, and embarrasses him at every turn."

From August 1910 (p. 161): "One phenomenon in this connection is almost embarrassing to mention, in view of the present growing sentiment in favor of women's rights and woman suffrage. It appears from the effects of a recent earthquake on the American people, that human reason is more readily inhibited in the gentler sex and in children, than men... This statement will hardly pass for anything new. This distinction is implied in the wording of one report, which states that 'men were excited, women and children frightened.'"

From February 1920 (p. 36): "'I care nothing for style; I can wear the suit I have on indefinitely,' said Miss Fanny Harley... That, presumably, is why she wears trousers instead of skirts... She is convinced that women's success in the business world is threatened by their traditional, fashionable clothing. Undoubtedly, she would prefer to see our stenographers dressed in white trousers... We gravely doubt that would add to their efficiency."

Of course, today's Popular Science is not much better, as you can see by looking at the stories currently on the front page:

1. Science Dweebs Often Virgins - in which we learn that Science Dweebs are always male: "He blames a dearth of sexy role models for today’s blossoming men of science..." (emphasis mine)
2. Sex, Thighs and Video Games - the audience of this book review is assumed to be all-male as it discusses the depiction of women in video games. Here's an actual quote: "So have a read, ogle the pictures, and then grab your, er, controller and get your game on."
3. An article that dares to ask 'are men more likely to fall fast asleep after sex?' in which the author quotes a "sex expert" as saying "Men go to sleep because women don't turn into a pizza" - creepy image there, dude.

So, Popular Science still delights in gender stereotypes. I'll leave it to you to decide how far we've progressed in our popular notions of both science and gender over the last 136 years.

I Hate Fruit Flies

Really I do. When I was doing my fresh-water minnow research in college I had to share the lab space with students doing their fruit fly research. The sickly smell of fruit fly food was enough to turn me off fruit fly research for life. Thankfully I did indeed manage to avoid the little fellas.

However, my distaste has nothing to do with a lack of knowledge about their importance when it comes to scientific research, unlike (apparently) Sarah Palin.

"You guys have heard some of the examples of where those dollars go," the fun Alaska governor said to the guys in the audience, acknowledging their media savvy about Congress members, who sometimes acquire public money for frivolous projects. "You've heard about the bridges. And some of these pet projects. They really don't make a whole lot of sense."

A troubled look crossed her face. "And sometimes these dollars go to projects that have little or nothing to do with the public good, things like ..." she grinned, shaking her head side to side, her voice rising to a facetious pitch "... fruit fly research in Paris, France." Feeling in tune with the guys in her audience, she added, "I kid you not."

Now, I had to read about this because it does seem odd for U.S. money to go towards fruit fly research in France...I mean we all know how much the U.S. doesn't like the French these days, right?

Apparently this is why the research is necessary:

A healthy industry, for sure, and one now threatened by the fruit fly. A University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources report declares that currently "the olive fruit fly occurs in at least 41 counties in California," adding that in other areas of the world where the olive fruit fly has flourished, the pest has wiped out 100 percent of some olive varieties. As Thompson knew, a 2004 USDA report did not mince words: "The recent establishment of the olive fruit fly ... in California has threatened to destroy the U.S. olive industry."

And the reasoning behind the location of the research:

In April, when Thompson won the dubious achievement, he responded: "The olive fruit fly has infested thousands of California olive groves and is the single largest threat to the U.S. olive and olive oil industries." He explained that the U.S. Department of Agriculture will employ a portion ($211,000) of the $750,000 award for research in France. "This USDA research facility is located in France because Mediterranean countries like France have dealt with the olive fruit fly for decades, while California has only been exposed since the late 1990s," he said.

I still maintain that Sarah Palin is not the right female for White House. This wee little fruit fly tale is another example of how she manages to consistently fail at intelligent assessments of a situation.

Part II of children are not just tiny adults: Newborn pain

I heard a great talk last week on neonatal pain. It was honestly not even a topic that I had considered before. Of course all humans have pain--it never even occurred to me that they might not. Apparently, it wasn't until about twenty years ago that the idea that a premature infant could even feel pain was medically accepted. The thought was that they were born before their pain circuits fully matured, and therefore were incapable of feeling pain. Newer studies in fact shown that premature infants are HYPER-sensitive to pain.

One great tip I learned while on my pediatric rotation is that the most important developmental milestone could be considered the social smile at 2 months old. Up until 2 months, it is very difficult to tell if a baby is in pain or sick. If a child has lost their social smile, there is an excellent chance they need more advanced medical care. So how do we tell if a newborn, or even more dramatically, a premature infant is in pain?

It is not as easy as you might think. Testing (and common sense) has shown that crying is completely non-specific. Babies cry if they are upset, hungry, tired, etc. Grimacing and withdrawal reflexes have also proven to be a poor indicators. Additionally, in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), for medical reasons, babies are often sedated or groggy from medications. This further blurs our ability to read any cues they might give us. There are >40 scales out there, but none of them are thought to be the ideal way to assess neonatal pain.

From the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine is the study "Do we still hurt newborn babies?". In the NICU, in their study, each baby had on average 14 painful events each day. This ranged from pulling off tape, to heel sticks, to suctioning. Many times we don't even think to give any comfort during these procedures. Therapeutic options don't even have to be limited to just medication. You can dim the lights and noise to create less stressful environment and every medical student at some point has been on sweeties duty. This is where you dip the pacifier [or your finger] into a sucrose solution to let the baby calm itself on something sweet. This honestly works like magic. In this study, they found that less than 35% of newborns received any preceding intervention. Some studies suggest that neonates may be unable to experience the analgesic (pain relieving) effects of adult medications, such as morphine. They might just experience the sedative effects.

In my own work environment, cribs and incubators often have mirrors (so that the infants can look at themselves and receive visual stimulation), music, and mobiles. Hopefully other hospitals are also beginning to recognize the importance of treating neonatal pain; I just wish there were more quality studies out there to better guide us. Clearly, treating neonates like little adults just doesn't cut it.

Not only do neonates experience pain, they also remember it. The pain we experience as infants changes the way we will always react to pain. In mouse models, neonatal surgery affects the way adult mice react to pain stimuli. Similar results have been shown in humans. I have heard stories of former premature babies brought into the pediatrician's office who shriek if you touch their feet. Maybe they remember the heel sticks?

Children are people, too

PLoS Medicine has an article today entitled "Children Are Not Just Small Adults: The Urgent Need for High-Quality Trial Evidence in Children". According to several investigations, >50% of medications used in pediatrics have not been specifically tested to verify their safety and efficacy in children.

If children are so important to us as a society, then why don't we value their health?

PLoS Medicine also has an original paper in this edition that examines the differences in anti-epileptic drugs in children and adults. This study is meta-analysis, therefore it combines many previous studies to examine subtle trends that can be revealed by adding together the patients from other studies. They show that kids are more likely to experience the placebo effect than adults. Although the specifics of what they showed is not incredibly important, the study is particularly interesting because it is an example that kids don't respond to medication in the same way as adults, i.e. it is difficult to directly apply adult studies to children.

Quick Hit: Explaining HPV and Cancer

Denialism has posted a succinct description of the relationship between HPV (human papilloma virus) and cervical cancer.

So how can a virus like HPV lead to cancer? The short answer is simply that "HPV causes cervical cancer by screwing with two of our most powerful tumor suppressor genes." The long answer is really worth reading though, so go to!

(Image via the CDC)

My brain and I interpret you as hostile

My love affair with PLOS continues. Today I saw an interesting study: "Individual Attachment Sytle Modulates Human Amygdala and Striatum Activation during Social Appraisal" by a group in Switzerland. Translated into non-science babel, the group was looking at the biological underpinings behind human bonding, such as mother-child bonding or more broadly how people non-verbally perceive each other. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to look at which parts of the brain are active during assessment of facial expressions. Basically, the amygdala and striatum were the two primary areas involved, but they were triggered differentlly depending on your 'attachment' style: secure, avoidant, or anxious.

• Anxious attachment style - "perceive others as unresponsive or inconsistent, worry about being rejected, and show heightened vigilance to signs of support or hostility"
• Avoidant attachment style - "prefer being distant and detached from others, report no need for close relationships, and tend to distrust affective signals from others"
• Secure attachment style - "report positive and trustful interactions with others"

Stated differently: the exact same face (such as an angry expression or someone smiling) excites completely different areas of the brain. This pattern can be predicted based on the fundamental style of interaction. This is a great example of correlating basic science with a real-world readout. It may be a bit far-reaching, but the paper states that someday, their methodology could be applied to better create intervention strategies for disorders such as autism and phobias, which are characterized by abnormal and pathologic interactions.

Interestingly, the paper did not touch on any gender differences (with all 16 of its subjects). I would like to know if, even within the same attachment category, there were any inconsistencies between men and women, or if ultimately the style trumped sex.

Drug Companies Ignore Pregnant Women and Third World Countries

My favorite science journal, PLOS, has a nice series of articles on women's health and more specifically maternal health. PLOS, which I love because they are public access, is a top tier journal. The gist of the articles is that after the scariness of DES and thalidomide, maternal medicine development has been at a relative standstill. As pregnant women still often have the need for medication, this has de facto resulted in the off-label use of medication. According to Fisk and Atun, 75% of pregnant women are on at least one medication for which the safety has not been formally verified. This in no way means that all (or even any) of these drugs are actually dangerous--it moreso belies the fact that women are ignored by the drug companies. Only three new medications (atosiban, carboprost, and carbetocin) have come about in the last 20 years in the UK. This is in exception to abortifacients and reformulations. Moreover, two of them are only used post-delivery. The Big Medication Players in maternal health (magnesium sulfate, α-methyldopa, hydralazine, β-blockers, aspirin, and nifedipine) have all been around for decades.

Why is this so important? According to Fisk and Atun:

Worldwide, there are 536,000 maternal deaths annually, while nearly half the 13.5 million under-five child deaths occur as antepartum, intrapartum, or neonatal deaths.

In developing nations, the problems are even more pronounced because of their increased burden of disease. We do not know how to treat most tropical diseases in pregnant women, but that does not mean they are not getting sick and dying. I support careful testing of all people with no qualifications. Malaria, however, leads to a mortality rate of 50% in pregnant women in their 3rd trimester, according to White et al, and we do not know how to treat it. There is no easy answer. Clinical trials are difficult as it is, let alone one in pregnant women or in a third world country.

Viagra helps me get my rocks off

A great article came out in JAMA this week: Sildenafil Treatment of Women with Antidepressant-Associated Sexual Dysfunction by a group in New Mexico (with 3/6 female authors!). Although it is not the magic solution that men have, it seems that Viagra (Sildenafil) is successful in increasing orgasms in women on anti-depressants. That is no small feat. Anti-depressants are notorious for decreasing libido and orgasmic potential. These reasons are, in fact, a major cause of medication non-compliance. The inability to have pleasing sex is deleterious to a marriage in which one partner is already battling with depression. According to the authors:

Antidepressant treatment–associated sexual dysfunction is estimated to occur in 30% to 70% of men and women treated for major depression with first- or second-generation agents, a principal reason for a 3-fold increased risk of nonadherence that approaches 70% in the first months of treatment and leads to increased relapse, recurrence, disability, and resource utilization by affected patients.

The Definition:

• decreased sexual interest, genital sensitivity, and vaginal lubrication; delayed or absent orgasm; dyspareunia; reduced sexual activity; and overall dissatisfaction or loss of pleasure in sexual relations.

The Study:

• 8-week prospective, parallel-group, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial (Sounds like a well designed trial...)
  
• 7 US research centers (Lowers bias from one population group...)
  
• 98 previously sexually functioning, premenopausal women with remitted major depression on SSRIs (the most common type of anti-depressant) who were experiencing sexual dysfunction (It's a small study, but a start)

The Conclusions:

• Viagra + SSRI = :)

Update: Check out this week's Savage Love! He talks about this same study. Warning: link not safe for work.

Sexual Assault - The Lost Cause?

I don't often find myself commenting at other blogs. For the most part, that is because I find I am at a loss for time. However, since I am on vacation this week, I have had the chance to peruse other blogs. As a result, I have been commenting on a post concerning the fact that "rape" kits are not being tested (and I put that in quotes because I have been taught to refer to them as sexual assault kits since, as an analyst, I am paid to be unbiased).

What I have found at this site is an extreme horror at the fact that there are countless sexual assault kits not being tested in the forensic science system. The reasoning often pointed to is that there is a lack of funding. I have found that this reasoning has been lambasted as basically a cop out.

I am curious as to additional thoughts on this. At the above cited post I find that I have been a relatively empty voice as far as supporting the notion of more funding. It gets lost in the outrage. I truly do understand the outrage. However, as I pointed out in one of my comments, I am one of four analysts for well over thirty counties. A simple DNA case takes two weeks to process. It simply isn't feasible to keep up with them all without more funding. The only reason we finally have our heads above the water is thanks to Department of Justice funding for outsourcing of the backlog.

So, is it apathy or a lack of funding?

UPDATE:

A recent new article concerning a man freed after post-conviction DNA testing appears at Yahoo News. This is the type of story that I don't want to get lost in the shuffle. The Innocence Project does amazing work. If it wasn't considered a conflict of interest for me, I would be a volunteer. While there is much to be done to keep on top of the insane amount of evidence submitted to a crime lab, it is heartening to know that DNA is doing its level best to convict or exonerate, even if it takes a while to right a wrong.

Advice to Professional Women

[Note to readers: This first post from our newest contributor, Le Loup-garou, discusses some of the advice she's received over the years on how to be a 'professional woman.' You can expect a longer introduction to the amazing Loup later this week, but for now we hope you'll say hello in the comments, as well as leaving your own stories about the gendered 'success advice' you've received over the years, and your reactions to it. And now, Le Loup-garou...]

I have been in entrenched in academia for all of my adult life. I have accumulated a number of "tips" about being a successful woman from various mentors that I thought I’d share.

• Work harder than the men. A female doctor once pulled me aside and told me her tip to success, which is let the men leave work first. According to her, in order to be seen as an equal, a woman is required to work twice as hard as a man and accordingly will be judged harder for "laziness."
• Speak in a professional, deep voice. My graduate school mentor teaches all of his female students to speak clearly in a deep voice to command attention and respect. I realized the strength of this after I heard a talk by a woman with a high voice and began to unconsciously dislike the data. I also have heard women give professional talks like kindergarten teachers, with excessive enthusiasm and too much of a chipper attitude.
• Be aggressive. In the operating rooms, there is typically one person in charge of organizing the instruments and handing them to the doctors called the scrub tech. As a medical student, we stand nearest to the scrub tech, furthest away from the actual operation. We’re mainly there to just observe. There was this operating room nurse that every time I scrubbed into one of her cases, she would constantly whisper things into my ear. Typically it was “A boy would be more aggressive and involved!” It was disarming that, as the surgeons were trying to teach, I had this angry bird in my ear, but I did see her point.
• While at work, never talk about wanting children. It’s fine to want children someday, but until you are actively pregnant it’s none of their business. I spoke with one doctor who did not choose to go to more prestigious residency programs because the other residents and applicants there spent their time talking about their future pregnancy desires.
• Wear skirts. This is the classic thing we’re taught for medical school. Almost all of the women wear skirts to their interviews. I even once had a patient tell me he was glad I wore a skirt into clinic because “women today just don’t dress like women anymore”. I also had a country patient who called me “Honey” after every sentence. I was slightly offended, until I saw he did the exact same thing with the male doctor.

What advice have you gotten, good or bad, for being a professional woman?

Sure, Tricking Babies is Fun, But is it Right?

From Women's Bioethics Blog, here is a little motherhood moral dilemma for your Friday morning:

A New York Times article ( “Experts Question Placebo Pill for Children” --May 27, 2008) raises the question of whether giving children placebo pills for minor childhood illnesses is an ethical practice. Based on the premise that pharmacologically inert compounds can actually produce improvements in some medical conditions, Jennifer Buettner, a mother of 3 small children, developed a cherry-flavored chewable dextrose tablet, the first branded, pharmaceutical grade placebo. The therapeutic effect is based on the power of suggestion. If parents use the placebo to “trick” their children into thinking that they are taking real medicine, the children will consequently feel better.

Notice that the brand name, Obecalp, is simply placebo spelled backwards. Mommies and daddies are tricky, no?

Of course, there might be a catch to this 'magic feather' catch-all cure for minor childhood complaints, as the New York Times points out. First of all, clinical studies that use placebos are usually double blinded - neither the patient nor the person giving the placebo knows its a fake, making it easier to fool the patient. So Obecalp might not work if the moms and dads handing it out know its a sham. Yet, your parents probably knew there was no Santa, and they still managed to fool you for years (man, were you gullible), so I'm not buying the kids-will-see-through-this argument.

A graver concern is that fake medicines could condition kids into thinking that popping pills is the solution to every problem:

“Kids could grow up thinking that the only way to get better is by taking a pill,” Dr. Brody said. If they do that, he added, they will not learn that a minor complaint like a scraped knee or a cold can improve on its own.

Dr. David Spiegel, a psychiatrist who studies placebos at the Stanford School of Medicine, said conditioning children to reach for relief in a pill could also make them easy targets for quacks and pharmaceutical pitches later. “They used to sell candied cigarettes to kids to get them used to the idea of playing with cigarettes,” he said.

Despite the controversy, Obecalp went on the market on June 1st - you can now buy it over-the-counter. So, we are left with the questions - is it ethical to give your kids a fake drug and tell them that it is medicine? What if you tell them it's just sugar, but it might help them feel better anyway? Will Obecalp create a psychological dependency on pills? Is this anything new, or have parents been taking advantage of the placebo effect since parenting began?

(Oh, and for the 'why is this a feminist issue' folks... 1. parenting continues to be a central concern for many women, and it unfortunately is a task that falls largely on mothers, whether they have a partner or not. 2. I'm a feminist, I want to talk about it, and this is my blog, gosh darn it!)

(Magic feather via)

Power, Powerlessness, and Your Brain

Anyone with a few spare minutes should read this interesting article from Not Exactly Rocket Science, which discusses some new research suggesting that feelings of powerlessness negatively impact an individual's mental performance:

In a series of experiments, Pamela Smith from Radboud University Nijmegen has shown that the powerless actually take a measurable hit to important mental abilities. Even if people are subconsciously primed with the concept of being powerless, they perform more poorly at tasks designed to assess their ability to plan, focus on goals and ignore distractions.

The NERS post describes Dr. Smith's methods, and its implications:

These results suggest that poor performance of those that lack power does not provide sufficient evidence that power has been allocated fairly. An alternative explanation is that assigning someone a certain position can alter their mental skills in a way that confirms their standing.

Considering that having power actually allows people to more easily realize their full potential and be more productive, it seems like any rational society (or classroom, or workplace) would strive to empower all of its members. So, what's the hold-up?

The original research can be found here.
(via Feminist Law Professors)

Cranks, Crazies, and Dinosaurs

Here is a fun disturbing Friday game: try to spot all the denialist tactics used by these creationist cranks as they guide a group of children around a science museum:

glumbert - How to ruin a day at the museum

Think this has nothing to do with feminism? Well, you're partially right - the tour guides don't openly promote the oppression of women. Yet, it is this sort of brain-washing that has convinced generations upon generations of supposedly 'good' people that women are not as intelligent as men, despite constant evidence to the contrary, and that they therefore do not deserve any rights - not even over their own bodies. This type of 'its in the Bible' non-logic also promotes the idea that gays are 'unnatural' - so, no rights for them either! So, being opposed to confusing children about the difference between fact and faith seems pretty feminist to me. The rearranging of reality to fit a preexisting world view certainly hasn't been good for women in the past and continues to hurt women today.

Besides, this sort of stupidity is just so... embarrassing.

(h/t: Coffee Shop Philosophy)

Breaking News: People Found to Be Individuals (in bed!)

Here is a little study from the Kinsey Institute that the gender essentialists won't appreciate. Apparently, men and women don't actually differ that much in how often they want some lovin' - and individual men (much like individual women) vary a great deal in what gets them going. According to one researcher involved with the study, Dr. Erick Janssen:

Taken together, the findings provide a much more nuanced picture of men's sexuality than is promoted by men's magazines... "There's huge variability among men in how easily they're turned on or turned off, how easily they experience sexual desire and arousal," he explained. "The differences among men and the differences among women are much larger than the average difference between the sexes in almost anything sexual."

So, science tells us that rather than relying on stereotypes about 'what men like' vs 'what women like,' we're all just going to have to take the time to learn our partners' needs and desires, as though they were distinct individuals. Shocking, huh? Now, if someone could just get that memo over to Cosmo and Maxim...

Is Life Expectancy Dropping for Many U.S. Women?

Most of us assume that, with advances in medicine and increasing awareness of the heath risks associated with poor diet and smoking, each generation of Americans will enjoy a longer life expectancy than the the generations that came before. Indeed, this has been the case throughout the 20th century. Yet, as the New York Times reports:

...new research shows that those reassuring nationwide gains mask a darker and more complex reality. A pair of reports out this month affirm that the rising tide of American health is not lifting all boats, and that there are widening gaps in life expectancy based on the interwoven variables of income, race, sex, education and geography.
...
The most startling evidence came last week in a government-sponsored study by Harvard researchers who found that life expectancy actually declined in a substantial number of counties from 1983 to 1999, particularly for women. Most of the counties with declines are in the Deep South, along the Mississippi River, and in Appalachia, as well as in the southern Plains and Texas.
...
The researchers found statistically significant declines for women in 180 of the 3,141 counties in the United States and in 11 counties for men. In an additional 783 counties for women and 48 for men, there were declines that did not reach the threshold of statistical significance.

You can read more at PLoS Medicine, in two papers entitled The Reversal of Fortunes: Trends in Country Mortality and Cross-Country Mortality Disparities in the United States and Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and Race-Counties in the United States.

UPDATE: Since I posted the above, this news has been picked up by Women's Bioethics Blog. Sue Trinidad rightly notes that, since this decline in life expectancy mainly affects poor women, this is not just a health concern, but a social justice issue as well.

Dude, It's Your Pregnancy Too

As my college roommate, who is now pregnant, explains: "We are pregnant when my husband wants to brag to relatives or park in the reserved parking spaces. But it is just me who's pregnant when it comes to diet or lifestyle - he can eat sushi in front of me all day long and then turn around and talk about our pregnancy." This hypocrisy seems consistent throughout all stages of pregnancy and birth - a woman wishing to become pregnant is advised to follow strict dietary rules while trying to conceive, and the should's and shouldn'ts just keep coming throughout the baby's first years. For expectant fathers, on the other hand, traditional wisdom seems to say 'anything goes.'

Yet, according to a recent article published in Science News, "...growing evidence suggests that a father's age and his exposure to chemicals can leave a medical legacy that lasts generations." For example:

Babies of firefighters, painters, woodworkers, janitors, and men exposed to solvents and other chemicals in the workplace are more likely to be miscarried, stillborn, or to develop cancer later in life, according to a review in the February Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology.

Fathers who smoke or are exposed at work to chemicals called polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons put their children at risk of developing brain tumors.

That's right, it seems as if the chemicals to which men are exposed impact the health of their children even if the exposure happens before conception. The link between paternal exposure to drugs, for example, and the health of offspring has been clearly shown in animal models:

Male mice exposed to cocaine, for example, pass memory problems on to their pups, a 2006 study in Neurotoxicology and Teratology shows. The male mice inhaled cocaine in long daily sessions akin to crack binges. When they mated with females never given coke, they had pups that had trouble learning and remembering where to find food in simple mazes. The problem was especially severe for female offspring. The researchers couldn't find any obvious DNA damage in coke-smoking males' sperm, but did find altered levels of two enzymes involved in the methylation of DNA in sperm-producing tissue in the father mice. The result suggests that epigenetic changes may be responsible for the offspring's behavior problems.

Of course, it wouldn't be quite ethical do run a similar experiments in humans, but the link between a father's age and the chance of his children developing genetic diseases has been clearly documented.

Basically, what this research shows is that the widely held belief that it is the mother, and only the mother, who's lifestyle and dietary decisions impact the health and well-being of future children is sexist bunk. For the health of the kiddies, both partners have to play a part.

(via Women's Bioethics Blog)

Quick Hit: Can the HPV Vaccine Protect Women from Breast Cancer?

There is an interesting discussion over at Aetiology of whether or not Gardasil, which vaccinates women against the 4 types of human papillomavirus "believed to be responsible for 70% of all cervical cancers," might help protect against breast cancer as well. It is a particularly timely piece, considering that Kentucky's State House passed a bill yesterday that would require that all girls be vaccinated against HPV. Also, you might want to pop by the comments at Aetiology for more interesting conversation on the role of viruses in cancer as well as a debate on the proper managing of trolls. Happy reading!

Shedding Skin Cells- That's What Murderers Do!

The future is here! According to the Washington Post, five human embryos have been created from adult skin cells. These clone-bryos will never grow up to be quintuplet clone-abies, though, which is good news for nations that have not yet adequately prepared for clone attacks. "No law bans cloned-baby-making, but the Food and Drug Administration has said that such experiments would require its approval," reports the Post. Apparently researchers sorta wanted to make clone babies, but were just too lazy to file the FDA paperwork. Bureaucrats 1: Clone Babies: 0!

Some might think that this whole 'human cloning technology' muddies the abortion debate a bit. If the working premise is that we have a moral responsibility to turn every cell that has the potential to someday develop into a human baby into a baby, well, showering and hair brushing alike have now become reprehensible acts. Others say that worry over the rights of clone fetuses and skin cells is premature, maintaining that, after years of monkey vs. robot conflict, the new alliance of monkeys and robots presents a much more pressing threat.

Microscopes for Lads, Discovery Diamond Scopes for Lasses

Yeah, you thought it couldn't get any worse when you saw the pink monopoly, didn't you? But then PZ asked:

...but what is the Discovery Channel Store's excuse? Here's what they advertise as appropriate science gifts for boys:

• Cube Word Series 2 Set ("Create your very own interactive world")
• Discovery ATM Machine ("This at-home ATM is an excellent way to learn about saving money.")
• Discovery Radio Controlled Arthropods
• Virtual Distance Football
• Discovery Star Theater

And here's what the girls get:

• Rainbow In My Room
• Discovery Sew Fun Sewing Machine
• Discovery Pink Slide and Text Messengers ("Chat with your friends wirelessly and transmit text messages up to 15' away.")
• Discovery Diamond Dust Microscope
• Discovery Fashion Design Studio

Yeesh...

I looked it up. It's all true - go see for yourself. Discovery Channel, you got some 'splain to do!

But, it is nice to realize that, despite corporate efforts to keep girls away from science, our young women are taking home the prizes at the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology this year (Via Feministing).

How Many Blonds Does it Take to Write a TimesOnline Science Review?

You might have noticed the media stir today about a study that reportedly proves that exposure to blond women makes men dumber. The alleged study, reported in the TimesOnline, concludes that men believe that they are dealing with an idiot when talking to a fair-haired female, and therefore mimic the perceived idiocy:

Researchers discovered what might be called the “bimbo delusion” by studying men’s ability to complete general knowledge tests after exposure to different women. The academics found that men’s scores fell after they were shown pictures of blondes.

Further analysis convinced the team that, rather than simply being distracted by the flaxen hair, those who performed poorly had been unconsciously driven by social stereotypes to “think blonde”.

“This proves that people confronted with stereotypes generally behave in line with them,” said Thierry Meyer, joint author of the study and professor of social psychology at the University of Paris X-Nanterre. “In this case blondes have the potential to make people act in a dumber way, because they mimic the unconscious stereotype of the dumb blonde.”

Of course, the TimesOnline provides no link to the original research, this month's Journal of Experimental Psychology (where the findings were reportedly published) mentions no such study, and a search for "Thierry Meyer" and "Journal of Experimental Psychology" produced nothing remotely similar to the research described.

But, for kicks, let's suppose that this study actually exists.

It's bunk. Experimenters merely had men view pictures of women and then gave them a test? How did researchers establish that men mimic the projected performance of the people seen in pictures? Did the men fail the test after being shown pictures of babies, because they know that babies are dumb? Would they have failed the test if taking it in the presence of, say, a guppy?

So, you can hold-off on affixing a warning label to those golden tresses, this is just more hype. Damaging hype for women, since we know that repeating a stereotype reinforces it. And as for this post's title question - it's a trick. The TimesOnline apparently doesn't cover science.