Scientists discover the purpose of sex

Scientists who obviously have no sex lives of their own (like some bloggers) have made an astonishing discovery. As reported by Nick Collins in the Daily Telegraph on July 8, 2011:

Now researchers have discovered that animals reproduce together, rather than simply cloning themselves, because it helps them to ward off parasites.

The findings support the evolutionary theory that blending of two animals' genomes creates an offspring with a new genetic code which may make it more resistant to attack, experts said.

Cross-fertilisation helps creatures stay a step ahead in the continuous "arms race" with parasites, which are forever evolving to try and infect them.

Biologists have described the situation as "Running with the Red Queen" in reference to the character in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass, who tells Alice: "It takes all the running you can do, to keep in the same place."

Despite the popularity of the theory, there has until now been little solid evidence to support it.

But experts at the University of Indiana may have provided the best evidence yet after engineering two types of worms, some which could only reproduce by mating with each other and some could only clone themselves.

After exposing them to a harmful bacteria, worms that reproduced through sex survived fairly well while those that were asexual died rapidly.

Co-author Curtis Lively said: "The Red Queen Hypothesis predicts that sex should allow hosts to evade infection from their parasites, whereas self-fertilisation may increase the risk of infection.

"The coevolutionary struggle between hosts and their parasites could explain the existence of males."

HT: Max Read; Dracul Van Helsing

Unlicensed drivers are prone to risky behaviour

Of course, the propensity to engage in risky behaviour may be a major reason that these drivers don't have licenses. As reported by Dave Cooper in the Edmonton Journal on April 18, 2011:

Drivers who get behind the wheel without a valid licence are more likely to take chances, traffic safety expert Barry Watson says.

They're also involved in about 10 per cent of all fatal crashes in Australia and 20 per cent in the U.S., and are also four times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash compared to licensed drivers...

...His study of accident files between 2003 and 2008, plus interviews with hundreds of drivers charged with illegal driving, paints a picture of drivers "outside the system" who are banned from driving yet continue to do so because they can get away with it...

...Driving to traffic court with a suspended licence suggests to Watson that "punishment avoidance" -or not being caught -was the strongest predictor of continued illegal driving. He said one-third continued to drive unlicensed and undetected before their court date.

"They would say I have been driving for 10 years and have been caught once, so I'll just keep doing it."

Exposure to dumbed-down content in the media can dumb you down

As reported by Misty Harris of Postmedia News on June 15, 2011:

A new study suggests that when people don't think critically about their media consumption, they're in danger of assimilating some of the mental characteristics on display. Specifically, researchers found that if the main character in a screenplay was a total imbecile, and people weren't expressly asked to identify differences between themselves and that protagonist, the participants' own cognitive skills were compromised.

In other words, stupidity appears to be contagious - if only temporarily.

"It's not like a disease, where once you have it, you have it for a long time; we're not saying you'll be impaired the day after reading a stupid story or watching TV," says study author Markus Appel, an associate professor at Johannes Kepler University of Linz in Austria. "But we do show that performance in knowledge tests is susceptible to fictional characters."

Just as video games put players at the centre of the action, Appel says storytelling implicitly asks people to identify with the characters on some level. And just as video games have been (controversially) linked to behaviour, stories can have a transformative effect on people's thinking.

"People are scared of being influenced by aggressive content but there are many other things to consider," says Appel. "There's much more to narratives than just entertainment."

In experiments with 81 people, Appel had different groups read a screenplay that featured either a protagonist whose intellectually abilities were undetermined or one in which the star was an alcoholic, aggressive and intellectually feeble soccer hooligan (think Europe's answer to the cast of Jersey Shore).

Half of those given the latter story were directed to think about ways in which they differed from the protagonist, while the others were given no such instruction before reading the tale.

Afterward, all participants took a general knowledge test, and those who read the story about the idiotic thug did significantly worse, on average, than those who read the story in which the main character's intellect wasn't addressed. The exception was the group that was asked to actively think about the imbecilic character's traits - a process Appel says kept the contagion effect from occurring, and ultimately underscored the value of critical thinking.

Go here to see the abstract of Dr. Appel's article A Story About a Stupid Person Can Make You Act Stupid (or Smart): Behavioral Assimilation (and Contrast) as Narrative Impact in Media Psychology, Volume 14, Issue 2, 2011, pp. 144-167.

Cats kill birds

As reported by Elisabeth Rosenthal in The New York Times on March 20, 2011:

While public attention has focused on wind turbines as a menace to birds, a new study shows that a far greater threat may be posed by a more familiar antagonist: the pet house cat.

A new study in The Journal of Ornithology on the mortality of baby gray catbirds in the Washington suburbs found that cats were the No. 1 killer in the area, by a large margin.

Nearly 80 percent of the birds were killed by predators, and cats were responsible for 47 percent of those deaths, according to the researchers, from the Smithsonian Institution and Towson University in Maryland. Death rates were particularly high in neighborhoods with large cat populations.

I especially like the brilliance of that last finding. To see the abstract of the study as it originally appeared in The Journal of Ornithology, go here.

Snipers face less stress than other soldiers

The Canadian Armed Forces have made the shocking discovery that snipers are less stressed than other soldiers, and enjoy their work more. Gee, I wonder if that may be because snipers aren’t directly in the line of fire. I have the suspicion that the study’s finidings regarding Canadian snipers are probably true for snipers in armies the world over. As reported by Andrew Mayeda of Postmedia News on January 5, 2011:

OTTAWA — Canadian snipers who have served in Afghanistan report being less traumatized by the war than the average soldier, according to a study that offers a rare glimpse into the minds of Canada's battle-hardened troops.

Rather than expressing regret over their deadly line of work, snipers say they feel justified in killing enemies who pose a threat to Canadian troops and Afghan civilians. Moreover, most show high levels of career satisfaction, and say their job has been a positive influence in their lives.

Yet snipers report being more troubled than other soldiers when asked about specific combat experiences, such as knowing that someone has been seriously injured or killed in action, or seeing members of their unit become a casualty.

The findings are part of an ongoing three-year study commissioned by Defence R&D Canada, the research arm of the Department of National Defence. They paint a complex, at times contradictory, portrait of the carefully screened, elite soldiers who are paid to take out the enemy from afar.

A House of Commons committee has estimated that 1,120 of the 27,000 Canadian soldiers who served in Afghanistan between 2002 and 2008 showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Yet a number of soldiers who have returned from the war have complained that the military does not provide adequate care to those afflicted with the disorder.

After reports of snipers being traumatized, the former commander of Canada's land forces, Lieut.-General Andrew Leslie, called for an examination of their psychological well-being. Previously, little was known about the unique makeup of snipers.

"Unlike other soldiers who can deflect their responsibility for killing by rationalizing that they were led into battle by their officers, or had to kill in order to stay alive, snipers have more autonomy than conventional combat soldiers and often have discretion as to who they kill and who they don't," writes study author J. Peter Bradley, a retired lieutenant-colonel in the Canadian Forces who now works as a professor at Royal Military College in Kingston, Ont.

In his initial exploratory study, Bradley interviewed 19 snipers who had served in Afghanistan and been back to Canada for at least six months. Most had killed someone in combat. Because of the small sample size, Bradley cautions that more research needs to be done before any firm conclusions can be drawn about the sniper community.

Compared with a general benchmark, the snipers exhibited escalated levels of psychological stress after taking a test known as the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. However, their stress levels were actually lower than the average scores of Canadian soldiers who served in Afghanistan.

Bradley notes the Canadian Forces have been developing a system of tests to filter out candidates who don't fit the right psychological profile. According to this research, snipers tend to score low on "neuroticism," high on conscientiousness and low on "tender mindedness."

According to conventional theory, soldiers typically feel an initial sense of euphoria after killing someone in combat. Most later express remorse, and in the third stage, they try to rationalize their actions — a process that can haunt soldiers for the rest of their lives, Bradley notes.

But the snipers he interviewed showed little remorse, with one third stating that they had no feelings about killing, since they were just doing their job.

Bradley says it's possible snipers truly have no regrets and are coping well. "First, killing in combat may not be as traumatic as one might think. Humans have been killing one another in combat for millennia. Second, even if we assume that killing in combat is traumatic, not everyone suffers after experiencing trauma."

However, he also suggests the snipers could have been concealing their feelings to reconcile conflicting emotions about killing, or to "protect their place within the sniper community."

"Snipers are top soldiers and weakness is not consistent with the sniper image," Bradley writes.