Events and speakers

Let’s Talk About Fake News

April 24, 2019 By Mariah Cox in Events and speakers

Fake News Panel — The Science, Health and Environmental Journalism club at MU hosted a fake news panel on April 3. | photo by Mariah Cox, Bond LSC

By Mariah Cox

What do CBD, climate change, flat earthers, and anti-vaxxers have in common? All are prevalent in the propagation of ‘fake news’ in science.

Truthful and accurate reporting is crucial in the field of journalism to create a well-informed society. You may have heard the term ‘fake news’ a time or two, but what does fake news really mean, what does it look like and how does it arise?

“It’s important for everybody, all journalists, and really all human beings to kind of have a better understanding of where some of this information went wrong to be able to identify stories that might sound real that are probably not,” said Sarah Shipley-Hiles, an MU journalism professor who chaired the fake news panel hosted by the Science Health and Environmental Journalism (SHEJ) club on Wed., April 3.

In short, fake news is pseudo-news that contains disinformation or falsities that deceive the public. This false information sparks distrust of the media and causes strong debate among members of opposing ideologies.

SHEJ president Madelyne Maag opened the discussion Wednesday with the flat earth conspiracy theory.

“Flat earth theory is one of the most popular and talked about conspiracy since the 1990s when it first surfaced and then it nearly died out,” Maag said.

The flat earth theory is the belief that instead of the earth being spherical, it is on a plane with a wall surrounding it. It nearly died out in the 1990s when its creator died. However, the theory resurfaced with the rise of the internet and social media.

Facebook provided a platform for those still believing in the theory to connect and spread their ideology. To put it into perspective, the group of 3,500 original believers has expanded to a Facebook following of roughly 200,000 people now.

“Social media has magnified the problem, but it is not the sole source of the problem,” Maag said.

Other platforms such as Netflix, Hulu and YouTube have brought the flat earth theory to light through videos and documentaries, and further spread its doctrine globally.

To get an understanding of why conspiracy believers thrive, two cognitive researchers from Texas Tech attended the first flat earth conference in Raleigh, NC in 2017. Landrum and Olshansky conducted interviews with 50 attendees to better understand their motivations for believing the theory. They found that people who believe one conspiracy theory are more susceptible to believing other conspiracy theories.

They also found of the people they interviewed, most of them became aware of the theory through YouTube. They reported watching 9/11 conspiracy videos and being led to flat earth conspiracy theory through YouTube’s autoplay function and recommended videos.

And there is no shortage of user-generated content with the rise of the internet. The problem lies in unchecked information and deceptive claims being perceived as fact.

“Because of that, it shows that journalists have an important duty to get the story right the first time,” Maag said. “Those who are in charge of social media have a responsibility to make sure fake news and fake information is not given the light of day.”

The same problem presents in many science news topics, including rapid acceptance of Cannabidiol (CBD) oil as a natural ‘cure all’ despite not being approved by the FDA, anti-vaccination claims and misconceptions of climate change.

Anti-vaccination claims arose after British doctor Andrew Wakefield published a study in the Lancet suggesting a connection between the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination to behavioral and developmental disorders in children. The study was later retracted as the study was not replicable by other researchers, thus invalidating its claims. Additionally, the study was funded by private interest groups who were against vaccine-producing companies.

“Jenny McCarthy went on Oprah, the Today Show and the View and talked about her own anecdotal experience of her son having autism so she claims that the vaccine for MMR led to that,” said Ashton Day, a graduate student at MU.

Because of the reach of these television shows as well as McCarthy’s following, among other causes, this belief was able to spread into public thought and encourage support for this stance.

The panel concluded that current journalistic reporting is doing a disservice to public perceptions of these issues.

“Unfortunately, the media played a big part in spreading the problem,” Shipley-Hiles said. “Journalists, in an attempt to be fair, cover these issues like a football game or a political battle. They just say these people say climate change is happening or not happening, you figure it out.”

What makes us trust science?

February 13, 2019 By Mariah Cox in Events and speakers

Mariah Cox | Bond LSC

When Simine Vazire began teaching undergraduate research methods she focused on its difference from pseudo-science or nonscience, the value of the scientific method and the notion that science is self-correcting. However, it became harder for her to teach that lesson with a clear conscience as she began to grapple with issues of credibility and replicability in the field of psychology with her own research.

“Credibility is arguably the eye of the storm of the in the replication crisis. I didn’t call this the replication crisis in psychological science because that’s pretty controversial,” Vazire said.

Vazire, a psychology professor from UC Davis, focused on these issues Monday, Feb. 4, in Bond LSC, as part of the Evolution and Social Science series. The talk, “The Credibility Revolution in Psychology,” centered on the idea that each scientific field should engage in critical self-examination to detect errors in theories and to improve them.

Upon beginning her research, Vazire found the false discovery rate to be high because many published findings were difficult to replicate and when studies were replicated, the pattern of results was inconsistent.

“I’m not embarrassed that we got things wrong, I’m happy that we’re figuring things out to make it better,” Vazire said. “But how do we make it better? I think we humans are the bug. We are not designed to be universalists who are communal, open and transparent, who like to question each other and challenge each other and so on. I think the key question for scientists to ask is ‘how would I know if I was wrong?’”

One way to help solve the credibility issue, Vazire suggests, is transparency.

“The more transparent we are, the more likely it is our errors will be caught,” Vazire said.

That means documenting every aspect of a study, verifying the claims, and letting the data and materials be viewable for other scientists to test, according to Vazire. Although transparency is necessary for credibility, it does not guarantee it. Studies need quality data and strong methods to back up claims.

In order for the science community to operate under a self-correcting system, Vazire recommends following four norms: universalism of status, communality of findings, disinterestedness and organized skepticism.

“I think this is good news,” Vazire said. “We didn’t know we were doing something wrong and now that we know we can fix it.”

The problem is bigger than individuals, and the science community as a whole needs to be dedicated to producing solid, verifiable claims, she said.

Now, Vazire challenges her students to be transparent in their research instead of advocating that science is self-correcting.

“We should teach students that when they’re going into science, they’re agreeing to have their stuff checked, challenged and criticized by other people,” Vazire said. “But, also, they’re allowed to challenge and criticize other people.”

The Evolution and Social Science Speaker Series hosts presentations by scholars exploring evolutionary perspectives from an interdisciplinary framework. Speakers span the full spectrum of the sciences and the humanities, including biology, neuroscience, psychology, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, and literature.

The series is held in 572 Bond LSC and its schedule is at https://ess.missouri.edu/speaker-series/spring-2019.html.

The start of an academic relationship

January 30, 2019 By Danielle Pycior in Events and speakers

Joint recruitment weekend welcomes prospective grad students to MU family

By Danielle Pycior | Bond LSC

As laughter and conversation began to fill the hall with the arrival of graduate students from across the country, new relationships began to form.

Entering its 10th year, the annual Graduate Life Sciences Joint Recruitment Weekend continues a unique recruitment tradition at the University of Missouri that has only grown with time.

Chris Pires, a Bond Life Sciences Center investigator, professor of biological sciences and associate dean for research in MU’s College of Arts and Science, has utilized the event every year as an opportunity to bring students together who wouldn’t otherwise meet. Though Pires plays a large role in recruitment, he acknowledges that giving students an opportunity to build relationships is crucial.

“They usually close the deal with each other and with the current students, I’m just throwing a party,” Pires said.

The weekend is a shared event between many programs across MU’s campus — biochemistry, biological sciences, the genetics area program, the informatics institute, molecular pathogenesis and therapeutics, plant sciences, the interdisciplinary plant group and the life sciences fellow-ship program —that come together to meet with students looking for research opportunities.

“It’s the largest group we’ve had to date, so that’s pretty exciting,” said Debbie Allen, MU coordinator of graduate initiatives.

Allen has organized this event since it began and says it’s important to show graduate students that MU is a community and not just a compilation of labs and offices.

“The most rewarding thing is when I see connections that start to be made, when I see the synergy between MU faculty and grad students and postdocs with the prospective students visiting our campus,” Allen said.

Pires is currently recruiting two students to join his research team. Both agreed that the weekend was greater than their expectations.

Michael Pisias from Sacramento State University said he hadn’t even thought about attending MU until he began speaking with Pires. After meeting, seeing the facilities and getting to know more of the MU community, Pisias said he could see a future here for himself.

Pires&Pisias — Michael Pisias is interested in research on polyploidy, or multiple chromosome duplications in plant species, and how that affects evolution and speciation. He plans to attend MU in pursuit of his PhD.

“It’s a really nice community, I love that everyone is super friendly,” Pisias said. “Every single person I have interacted with has been nice and more than helpful, and this facility is amazing.”

Pires said the recruitment weekend is to show students what this campus is all about.

“Being a grad student isn’t just being a member of your department, but part of this larger community of graduate students across MU,” Pires said.

Shawn Thomas from the University of Georgia was roped in by Pires at a UGA conference. Thomas said they talked for hours about his research and Pires convinced him to come look at MU.

“Coming to this recruitment weekend was amazing. It was a lot more than I expected. All the collaboration and the openness with faculty and students seem really great. I think this would be a cool place to start my graduate studies,” Thomas said.

Though this weekend may not be all that it takes to convince a student to attend the university, it does show them what MU is all about.

“The present and future of science is teamwork,” Pires said, “These collaborative events really start the spirit of, ‘hey we’re going to work together.’”

10th annual Agroforestry Symposium focuses on entrepreneurship in research

January 28, 2019 By Mariah Cox in Events and speakers

By Mariah Cox | Bond LSC

Farmers, scientists and tree experts, from field to forest, will bring their work inside this Wednesday and Thursday to hear how research can improve all of their livelihoods.

The 10^th annual University of Missouri Center for Agroforestry Symposium is set to take place Jan. 30-31 at the Bond Life Sciences Center on the University of Missouri’s campus.

The two-day event will focus on innovation and entrepreneurship in the field of agroforestry and will feature keynote speakers Rodolphe Barrangou and Kelly Sexton.

“The annual Agroforestry Symposium is an opportunity to bring together leading researchers and practitioners to explore in-depth and showcase a compelling agroforestry-related theme,” said Gregory Ormsby Mori, Center for Agroforestry outreach coordinator.

The Symposium kicks off Wednesday evening with an introduction from Mark McIntosh, vice president for research and economic development for the UM System and vice chancellor for research at MU. The introduction will be followed up by the keynote speaker Rodolphe Barrangou, who will give a presentation titled “The CRISPR Craze: Entrepreneurial Lessons from a Disruptive Technology.”

Barrangou, an associate professor of food science at North Carolina State University, specializes in researching the biology and genetics of CRISPR-Cas immune systems in bacteria which defend against viruses. Barrangou focuses on using CRISPR technologies in his lab to vaccinate the bacteria used to produce cultured dairy products in an effort to prevent viruses that could destroy starter cultures.

The following day will begin with an introduction from Michael Gold, interim director for the Center for Agroforestry, and Christopher Daubert, dean of the College of Agriculture, Food and Natural Resources, will introduce keynote speaker Kelly Sexton.

Sexton, an associate vice president for research—technology transfer and innovation partnerships at the University of Michigan, will talk about “The Transformative Power of Research and Technology Commercialization.” She promotes innovation and intellectual property development programs at her university as well as engagement with businesses and government organizations locally and globally.

Five presenters will follow the keynote speakers and will cover an array of topics pertaining to entrepreneurship in the fields of agriculture and natural resources. The second day of the Symposium will also have two panel discussions titled “Fostering Translation of Research and Entrepreneurship at MU” and “Building Economic Impact from University Research through Effective Industry Partnerships.”

The Symposium is free and open to the public, but all guests are requested to register in advance. There will be light refreshments and lunch on the second day. The Symposium will wrap up with a closing reception, poster session and demonstrations in McQuinn Atrium.

For more information about the speakers, topics and times, visit the Center for Agroforestry website.

German heart and lung researcher speaks at Bond LSC

December 4, 2017 By Samantha Kummerer in Events and speakers

Scientist Thomas Braun speaks at Bond LSC about skeletal muscle regeneration. Braun is the director of the Max-Planck Institute that studies the heart,lungs and blood vessels.| Photo by Samantha Kummerer, Bond LSC

By: Samantha Kummerer, Bond LSC

Thomas Braun, a researcher with the German-based Max Planck Institute for Heart and Lung Research, visited MU for a Bond Life Sciences and Mizzou Advantage seminar.

The Max Planck Institute aims to find treatment for heart and lung disease. Part of its research focuses on stem cells and how they can decrease damage done to patients’ tissues who suffer from heart or lung disease.

Many components can interfere with effective muscle regeneration and a lot of those this components are connected to cell death.

Braun’s talk focused on the epigenetic and transcriptional control involved in skeletal muscle regeneration. His research explores cell death’s effect on muscle regeneration. They initially hypothesized that cell death would interfere with regeneration.

Muscle regeneration requires satellite cells. Satellite cells, aptly named for being located near muscle and nerve cells, help skeletal muscle fibers grow, repair and regenerate.

When cells become obsolete they activate a cell program to commit suicide. This cell death comes in the form of apoptosis — normal programmed cell death triggered to eliminate old, unnecessary or unhealthy cells — and necroptosis that is a death by inflammation to counter viruses and other disease.

Braun said when muscle fibers break down there is lots of killing of cells.

“We wanted to see if we take the muscle stem cells out of the tissue and put them into a dish whether they would still maintain this increased function to undergo program cell death and quite interestingly this enhanced tendency to go into cell death is actually maintained even after a few different transitions in vitro,” Braun said describing a particular experiment.

This increase cell death, Braun hypothesized, is caused by changes in the chromatin, a complex of DNA and protein.

To better understand exactly which cell death program was responsible for this increase, Braun’s team repeated the experiment but block certain components. This led them to discover the increased cell death correlates with an increase in necrosis.

Braun also believes there are some epigenetic mechanisms involved. Epigenetic involves biological mechanisms that switch genes on and off.

CDH4 is a component of a complex within this epigenetic function. The larger complex is a repressor and keeps the chromatin together. The researchers thought CHD4 might be what is acting on the pathways

“This actually goes along with a massive increase in cell death so this lack of proliferation of the fiber is simply dependent or caused by the cell death of these satellite cells. They undergo cell death and therefore cannot proliferate,” Braun explained.

Braun said his team landed on the conclusion that normally CDH4 represses the expression of

RIBK3, a protein-coding gene, and thus prevents necrosis cell death. But without CHH4, necrosis begins, cells die.

There are still many questions and experiments that lie ahead to figure out the details involved.

Braun’s talk was made possible by the support of Mizzou Advantage and Bond LSC.

McKibben urges climate action in campus lecture

October 16, 2017 By echvyc in Events and speakers, Uncategorized

Bill McKibben explained the impact of increasing carbon emissions on the global climate and explored solutions to slowing the trend

Bill McKibben responds to an audience member’s question at his lecture on Oct. 4 in Jesse Hall. The screen behind him shows demonstrators blocking an oil rig from leaving harbor. McKibben called them “kayak-tivists.” Photo by Eleanor Hasenbeck | Bond Life Sciences

Eleanor Hasenbeck | Bond Life Sciences Center

Climate writer and activist Bill McKibben spoke to a packed house at the Missouri Theater Wednesday, October 4. With more than 300 people in attendance, McKibben discussed the changing climate, its impacts and his activism. The lecture was part of the Lloyd B. Thomas Lecture & Performance Series.

“It’s happened a hell of a lot faster and pinched a hell of a lot harder than we thought it would,” said McKibben of climate change.

McKibben said the signs of a warming planet first became apparent in the 1970s. Today, the oceans have become 30% more acidic as the world’s salt water takes in carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Hurricanes are breaking records in the amount of rainfall and monetary damage they bring, McKibben said.

The solution lies in consuming less and using alternative energy, he continued. Last year, half of Denmark’s energy was generated by wind. Solar panels are so affordable now that homes in east Africa once lit by kerosene lanterns are powered by solar panels on the roofs of small homes.

“If we actually wanted to, we could move with real speed to make this transition,” McKibben said.

Why aren’t we then? McKibben blames the fossil fuel industry. Internal communications from Exxon Mobil show the corporation took steps to protect its drilling rigs from rising sea levels and increasing severe weather at the same time it was working to block regulations that would decrease carbon emissions.

“It took me far too long to figure out that we were not in argument at all,” McKibben said, referring to the so-called debate as to whether a warming climate is caused by human impact. “We were in a fight, and a fight is always about money and power. The fossil fuel industry was the richest and the most powerful industry on the planet, and the fact that it had lost the argument made very little difference to it. It was winning the fight day after day after day.”

But for all the doom and gloom surrounding climate change, McKibben still has hope that we can slow the process. He founded 350, an organization working to use grass roots movements to oppose fossil fuels. According to 350.org, 350 is named after an acceptable concentration of carbon in the atmosphere, 350 parts per million. Demonstrations through the organization have taken place across the world, from American cities to places most susceptible to rising sea levels, like the Maldives and Haiti.

At Bond LSC, some are taking their own steps to slow down the rate of the world’s warming. Cheryl Rosenfeld studies Bisphenol A, a chemical component of many plastics. She recently installed solar panels on her home, and she earns credits for the energy they generate. She uses reusable bags at the grocery store to reduce the waste generated from plastic and the fossil fuels consumed to produce them.

“Each of us could be making the decisions in our own lives that can make a change,” Rosenfeld said. “If we all come together like that, we can make an impact.”

There are several ways to reduce your own carbon footprint:

Use renewable energy to power your home. You can find utilities companies that generate at least half their power through renewable energy
Weatherize your home to make your heating and cooling systems more efficient.
Invest in energy-efficient appliances. Use a power strip or unplug your devices when they are fully charged or not in use.
Reduce food and water waste. About 10 percent of American energy goes to food production, and about 40 percent of our food is wasted. You can save money and energy by eating what you buy.
Install solar panels on your home. Right now, you can earn a 30 percent federal solar tax credit. The city of Columbia also offers rebates to encourage utilities customers to use solar energy and invest in more energy efficient utility systems. The city also maintains a list of solar providers that meet its requirements for rebates.

The most important thing, said McKibben, is inspiring policy changes like carbon taxes or renewable energy programs.

“We’re so far deep into this problem that we can’t solve it one person at a time. What we need is a change in policy, said McKibben. “The best individual action is not to be an individual. It’s to come together in movements big enough – that doesn’t take an enormous movement. It takes between four or five percent of people coming together in a movement to force change in policy that might give us some chance.”

Bill McKibben is author of sixteen books about environmental issues and founder of 350. He frequently contributes articles and editorials to organizations such as the New York Times, the Guardian and Mother Jones. You can learn more about his writing and activism at his website.

Bond Life Sciences Center sponsored the 2016 LSSP Symposium, Confronting Climate Change, which brought experts in the field to MU to speak about its pressing issues.

The power of a hug

October 11, 2017 By Samantha Kummerer in Events and speakers Tags: Life Sciences and Society Program Symposium

Kory Floyd speaks about humans’ need for affection. Floyd spoke during the 13th annual Life Sciences and Society Symposium on Saturday, Oct. 7. | Photo by Roger Meissen, Bond LSC

By: Samantha Kummerer, Bond LSC

Kory Floyd was stressed and having an all-around bad day, but then a coworker offered him a hug.

“That hug didn’t change anything about what had gone in my day but it changed everything about what the way that I felt,” Floyd said. “Suddenly all that stress, suddenly all that disappointment, all that worry, it didn’t go away but it seemed to lift off my shoulders, it wasn’t weighing me down.”

Floyd studies how prosocial communication, like affection, compassion, and trust, affect individuals psychologically.

He spoke specifically on communicating affection during the Life Sciences and Society Symposium on Saturday, Oct. 7.

Affection can be communicated through verbal and non-verbal communication as well as through supportive behavior. This last category is one he discovered through his research. Supportive behavior like keeping someone’s car in good condition or helping someone with a task is sometimes the most common way of expressing affection, especially between men.

The University of Arizona communications professor said he started his research by exploring an aspect of affection that confused him in his life. Growing up in a family of huggers, Floyd said he soon found out that not everyone appreciated the same type or kind of affection.

Expressing affection can be risky. Affection can be misinterpreted or not reciprocated, censured by culture, and even transmit disease.

So why bother?

For Floyd, the answer is simple, “Affection as an emotion and behavior is a fundamental human need.”

To elaborate on his belief, he pointed to how humans are born dependent on others to survive for many years. A child needs someone to feed, protect, provide for it and often make huge financial and personal sacrifices. As Floyd points out, many parents willing to do this due to love.

“I don’t think it’s necessarily a stretch to claim that an infant’s ability to get someone to love it is a matter of life or death.” He theorized. “It is a matter of that infant’s survival to get someone to feel a strong enough emotional investment that they are willing to make all the other kinds of investment that are required for that’s infant’s survival.”

As we age, affection transforms into something that feeds our need to belong.

Floyd’s studies have revealed positive associations between affection and happiness and social engagement. Other research revealed that affectionate communication is associated with mental wellness and physical health. When exposed to stressful events, highly affectionate people react with less arousal and recover faster. When compared to a less affectionate person, the more affectionate person has a better immune system, lower blood glucose levels and improved cortisol rhythm.

“It’s really difficult to thrive without some measure of affection,” Floyd concluded.

While not everyone needs the same amount of affection, it is a ubiquitous form of prosocial communication.

“None of what I described here is a prescription for you to go out and start hugging people on the sidewalk, that is not a pathway to health, that is a pathway to incarceration,” Floyd joked as he concluded his talk.

Instead, he highlighted that affection is different than other communication behaviors because it is something we reserve for only the important relationships in our lives.

“We talk to anybody, we gesture to anybody but we don’t kiss just anybody, we don’t hug just anybody,” He said. “This is a special behavior and its something that we preserve and reserve for the very special people in our lives.”

The 13th annual Life Sciences and Society Symposium, The Science of Love, started Friday, Oct. 6 and Saturday, Oct. 7. It features six experts that research various aspects of love, relationships and connection. The event will conclude on Friday, Oct. 13 with its last speaker, Jim Obergefell, who was the plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court case on marriage equality.

Being friendly can payoff

October 10, 2017 By Allison Scott in Events and speakers Tags: LSSP2017

Dr. Brian Hare speaks about how friendliness and natural selection are connected at the 13th annual LSSP symposium, The Science of Love. | photo by Roger Meissen

Hare explains survival of the friendliest as component of natural selection

By Allison Scott | Bond LSC

Dogs really are a man’s best friend if you ask Brian Hare.

Our four-legged friends are a direct result of chance coupled with domestication. And over the course of hundreds of years, that domestication has led to deep bonds between humans and dogs.

“You love your dog, physiologically, the same way as your offspring or partner,” Hare said.

Throughout his career, Hare has analyzed various animals from dogs and foxes to chimpanzees and bonobos to determine how much friendliness actually is a factor in their survival.

Recently, Hare has focused on primates. In his studies, he’s observed distinct differences between chimpanzees and bonobos, both of which are closely related species.

“Chimpanzees are like humans,” Hare said. “Bonobos have a different social system.”

Chimpanzees tend to be the more aggressive, male-dominated of the two. On the other hand, bonobos are the exact opposite and thrive on a more equal approach. Bonobos love to share with anyone and everyone, making them friendlier.

Hare has been able to support this difference through a series of experiments. They show that one bonobo will likely help a stranger in a cage get food that is just out of reach. These experiments showed that bonobos are willing to help others in most situations unless there’s a high cost or risk to self.

The evolutionary elements of friendliness and the traits behind kindness Hare identified as a possible reason homo sapiens won out over other human ancestors like Neanderthals. This is due, in part, to what Hare calls the ‘like me’ trait.

“If we as humans can categorize based on cultural or social characteristics that someone is “like us,” we’re more likely to help them out,” Hare said. “This leads to bonds.”

The opposite is also true, though. This means if we identify someon as “not like us,” we’re less likely to help them. That stark difference between humans and both chimpanzees and bonobos makes for a more complicated communication process, and contributes to humans being both the friendliest and cruelest species alive.

At the end of the day, though, Hare strongly believes the science supports friendliness as a component of natural selection.

“You can win big by being friendly in the evolutionary game,” Hare said.

The 13^th annual Life Sciences and Society Symposium, The Science of Love, started Friday, Oct. 6 and Saturday, Oct. 7. It features six experts that research various aspects of love, relationships and connection. The event will conclude on Friday, Oct. 13 with its last speaker, Jim Obergefell, who was the plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court case on marriage equality.

Forming a bond

October 9, 2017 By Allison Scott in Events and speakers Tags: LSSP2017

Dr. Larry Young opens the second day of The Science of Love. | photo by Roger Meissen

Larry Young explores chemicals behind monogamy in prairie voles, humans

By Allison Scott | Bond LSC

Upon first glance, it wouldn’t seem that humans and small rodents have that much in common.

However, Larry Young extensively studies the prairie vole because their desire to mate for life.

“Prairie voles mate for life,” Young said. “That’s very unusual, in fact, only three to five percent of mammals do this.”

This commonality between the small mammal and humans allows Young to relate his research on voles to humans. His goal is to understand the neurochemical bond that occurs between two voles after mating.

Neurologically, this “pair bonding” occurs largely because of oxytocin. The brain houses receptors for this hormone that create pleasure from it. The resulting feeling’s mutual, and chemical, leading a bond to form.

“The brain’s reward system houses the receptors that make oxytocin an influential chemical,” Young said. “Prairie voles activate this when they bond.”

Young manipulates the prairie vole’s brain to try an understand why exactly pair bonding exists. He then takes brain scans of them, compares them to mice that aren’t monogamous and sees what’s happening differently in their brains. In doing so, he is able to pinpoint differences in the voles and apply that knowledge to humans.

“We should think of ourselves as part of a continuum,” Young said. “The voles have a similar makeup to humans, but we don’t say that they’re in love – we say they’re bonded.”

That distinction makes a difference in Young’s studies. However, he’s still able to learn a lot about people by observing voles, and it’s those revelations that Young enjoys most.

That insight might one day lead to treatments for autism or other disorders where issues in interaction and bonding affect people.

“The Science of Love isn’t just entertaining,” Young said. “It has the potential to change lives for the better.”

The 13^th annual Life Sciences and Society Symposium, The Science of Love, started Friday, Oct. 6 and Saturday, Oct. 7. It features six experts that research various aspects of love, relationships and connection. The event will conclude on Friday, Oct. 13 with its last speaker, Jim Obergefell, who was the plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court case on marriage equality.

Balancing lust, romance and attachment

October 7, 2017 By Allison Scott in Events and speakers Tags: LSSP2017

Dr. Helen Fisher opens the 13th annual LSSP symposium, The Science of Love, on Friday, Oct. 6. | photo by Allison Scott

Helen Fisher delves into the relationships we choose and why in our digital age

By Allison Scott | Bond LSC

We might not understand what drives us to establish and maintain romantic relationships, but Helen Fisher has made her living trying to figure it out.

The romantic love expert spoke Friday, October 6, in Bond LSC about the neurological reasons behind why humans behave the way they do.

“Romantic love is located right next to thirst and hunger in the brain – it’s a survival system,” Fisher said. “If we survive another million years, we will continue to fall in love.”

Fisher has worked in tandem with the dating site match.com for more than a decade to tailor sites like chemistry.com to look at how relationships actually work in our brains and in practice. Using data from match.com that represents the U.S. population, Fisher detailed how the digital age impacts the dating scene.

“Fundamentally, love isn’t changing,” Fisher said. “Courtship patterns are.”

He research indicates a tendency toward “slow love,” where partners tend to get sexually involved sooner, but are more cautious about marriage and take much longer than previous generations to pair up in that way.

Technology, meeting online and evolving social norms play huge roles in these changes, but she argued that dating sites aren’t really dating sites at all.

“They’re introducing sites,” Fisher said. “The only real algorithm is your brain.”

These changes in how people meet influence marriage, too. She highlighted how cohabitating influences the perception of marriage and its overall impact, as well as the increased tendency for more casual sexual encounters.

“What we’re seeing now is the expanding of the pre-commitment stage of romance,” Fisher said. “Marriage used to be the beginning of a relationship, but now it’s the end.”

While modern couples often postpone marriage, Fisher notes that most people do marry before they reach the age of 50 and she feels positively toward relationship trends and the direction that romantic love is headed.

“I’m extremely optimistic,” Fisher said. “We’re marrying later and moving toward relative marriage relationship stability.”

The 13^th annual Life Sciences and Society Symposium, The Science of Love, started Friday, Oct. 6 and Saturday, Oct. 7. It features six experts that research various aspects of love, relationships and connection. The event will conclude on Friday, Oct. 13 with its last speaker, Jim Obergefell, who was the plaintiff in the 2015 Supreme Court case on marriage equality.