Feynman’s Flower

oxytocin, the superglue of neurotransmitters

I recently heard about a friend of a friend of a friend hosting an oxytocin-sniffing party. I don’t know how common or rare that is, but it was new to me. I was immediately intrigued: I would love to know what the direct effects of oxytocin feel like. I mean, I *think* I know, but how fun to know for sure! Then my wiser friend cautioned that this may be more dangerous than fun.

He’s right. When female prairie voles’ brains are injected with oxytocin (usually what happens during mating), they pair-mate with the closest male, not their favorite and not the most evolutionary fit - the closest. Ewes injected with oxytocin bond to an unknown lamb like it is her own. People sniffing oxytocin are more likely to trust strangers while playing a gambling game, whether the strangers deserve it or not. Oxytocin is the superglue of neurotransmitters - care must be taken so you don’t do something dumb like mistakenly bond your fingers together.

I don’t know if sniffing oxytocin at a party would cause me to become attached to someone with whom I normally would not want to spend much time. But, um, I don’t think I’ll take the chance.

Unfortunate bonding is not only a danger at mysterious parties of indulgence. It can happen in the sober real-world, too. How wonderful it would be to sever the oxytocin and dopamine ties to someone after a break-up. Those weeks or months of weight-loss, yearning, and aching - gone.

Larry J. Youngs’s essay in Nature last week suggests that we are on the path to do just that. Our unraveling of the biochemical pathways behind love and bonding may lead to a love potion or genetic counseling for relationships, since the vasopressin receptor gene AVPR1A is linked to pair bonding ability (read: propensity to cheat) in human males.

In a New York Times article responding to Young’s essay, John Tierney argues the practicality of a love vaccine. This isn’t science fiction - an oxytocin blocker does turn normally monogamous female voles into philandering playgirls. What having blocked oxytocin would actually feel like is hard to imagine. Would the females be enjoying that sex or would it feel emptier?

I find it helps just to know what’s going on with oxytocin and dopamine and vasopressin in the various stages of becoming and being in love. Being able to manipulate these molecules in the process, like a kit of various adhesives and solvents, well, that could take some practice and I’m sure some fingers would lose a bit of skin in the mastering.

Bob Nidever has recently created virtual spaces for science art networking.

His blog “Art in Science” lists science art competitions and opportunities: http://artinscience.wordpress.com/

His Facebook group “Science Art Cafe” for chatting and networking: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=46717338652

His twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bnidever

I hope these take off - science art networking is so very needed.

OK, at first glance the word may look silly. But it should suit my need.

Ever since finding out that using the word factoid for a true fact, rather than an almost-but-not-quite-true fact, is incorrect, I’ve hoped to find an appropriate substitute. I need a word for the little tidbits of scientific results I so love so. I love telling my mom about oxytocin and trust, my heartbroken friends about vassopressin and voles, and random strangers at cocktail parties about, gosh, anything I read in New Scientist that happens to fit into the conversation. Science Nerd, sure. But I have enough English Major in me to hesitate to knowingly misuse words.

So, after some deliberation, I decided “factini” would work well to mean a small fact - a real fact. Perhaps a fact that could be taken out of context a bit or taken a step beyond what is strictly proven, but the best factini inspires wonder and/or comprehension in a eureka flash.

And it’s best served dry with two olives.

The Coalition on the Public Understanding of Science (COPUS) has named 2009 the Year of Science. They have given each month of 2009 a theme - we will have to wait for November to celebrate chemistry. January’s theme is “the process and nature of science.”

I don’t really have much to say about this first theme. While it is certainly important for people to understand that science proposes testable theories, tests them, and revises its story in iterative fashion, I’d hate to think that focus on the process part might get in the way of sharing the wonderment-inspiring results part. I remember (without nostalgia) having to memorize the discrete steps of the scientific process in grade school. Did I follow these to the letter in my own research? Uh, of course not. So why make our third graders think science is about memorizing rather than exploring? I would have preferred the extra time to inoculate a few more petri dishes. Now *that* makes me nostalgic.

I noticed that the Year of Science agenda doesn’t include much science art, yet. I hope we can change that…

COPUS is a grassroots network of a variety of science research and education entities. Its mission is to increase public understanding of science. You can see all the monthly themes and a calendar of events on their website: http://www.yearofscience2009.org/