I have to make a confession; I am a YouTube addict. One of the channels I find most informative is Health Care Triage. Here, Dr. Aaron Carroll discusses various medical topics. One of my favorite episodes discusses the risks and benefits of using antibacterial soap. It sure sounds great, a magical substance which kills all the nasty bacteria coating your hands, but can we be so sure?

Supposed Benefits

You might think that antibacterial soaps will prevent you from getting sick. Here’s the problem, most of your illnesses are caused by viruses, not bacteria. Both the flu and mononucleosis are caused by viruses, which antibacterial soap has no effect on. But let’s give the soap the benefit of the doubt.

If you are trying to kill bacteria, antibacterial soap is no more effective than regular soap. Some studies have shown that antibacterial soap is slightly better at killing off bacteria, but these studies also require their participants to wash their hands for 30 seconds more than 15 times per day. That’s just not realistic. When it comes down to normal hand washing, your regular soap is doing just fine.

The Risks

Now that we know antibacterial soap isn’t really helping, is it harming at all? This question has yet to be fully answered. All we can say now is that antibacterial soap may be detrimental to human and animal health.

                    www.thesingingsunflower.com

A 2006 study revealed that the key ingredients of antibacterial soap may actually damage your immune system, increasing your risk of allergies and hay fever. Interestingly enough, this increased risk for allergies was consistent for minors of all ages, races, sizes, and socioeconomic levels. The harmful effects of antibacterial soap don’t discriminate.

Sadly, the antibacterial chemicals also leak into our watersheds, exposing animals to dangerous side-effects. Small animals in these watersheds are at a higher risk, as the chemicals build up faster in their systems than in larger animals like humans. It’s not just a local problem. Studies in the Atlantic have found antibacterial chemicals in 31% dolphins. While the long-term effects of these chemicals are not completely clear, I shudder to think how this will impact marine life.

The Decision

When it comes down to it, antibacterial soaps are doing more harm than good. These soaps are no more effective than regular hand washing and studies suggest that they may be damaging our immune systems. If these chemicals aren’t helping us stay healthy, why use them?

Lounging around on my bed, waiting to watch Project Runway, I got to thinking about sitting. Yes, sitting. Is my inactivity contributing to my Freshman 15 weight gain? I found a New York Times article from 2011 that addresses this issue. And, while the information was scientifically solid, I noticed that some important facts were missing.

The Article

                             www.freerepublic.com

The majority of the piece focuses on James Levine, a scientist working in “inactivity studies.” Nutrition studies are difficult to conduct as most are retrospective, depending on the participants’ memory of their food intake and exercise. Levine removed this issue by tracking every move, every calorie, and every medical condition of his participants. His studies revealed that extensive sitting increases everyone’s chance of mortality, be they tall or short, skinny or fat.

The Issues

www.internetmonk.com

The New York Times failed to address some important aspects of Levine’s study. Firstly, who participated in the study? Nutrition is an incredibly fickle field, what works for one person may not work for another. Did Levine’s study accurately represent America? Were all ages and races represented? Second, what are the stats? The article stats that sitting is dangerous, but I don’t see a single data point. If sitting for extended periods of time increases mortality risk by 1%, it might be worth it. However, if it increases mortality risk by 15%, there is cause for concern.

To the Journalists

This seems to be a common problem in today’s news environment, journalists are omitting the facts in favor of shock value. Just look at the article’s title, “Is Sitting a Lethal Activity?” This draws in readers, but it doesn’t establish any scientific prowess. Readers need to start asking for more quality rather than quantity.

A few days ago, I found myself singing “In Remembrance” with the rest of U Choir. The sound was strong and emotional and, right at the end of the piece, we hit a great chord. At that moment, my spine shivered with a rewarding feeling. I had chills. This has happened to me so many times before, but why?

The Research

                        music.bermudastream.com

A 2011 study using these machines the brain revealed some interesting facts. Individuals listened to enjoyable music as researchers examined their brains’ using fMRI and PET scans. This study is incredibly detailed and careful. Participants were examined at the same time of the day, and women were tested while their menstrual cycles were at steady hormone levels. While there is still room for error, I believe that this study is quite reliable.

Scientific Mechanism

Here’s what they found: When listening to enjoyable music, the brain releases dopamine into our system, providing a pleasurable feeling. Interestingly enough, this response can occur with a variety of music types. Every response is specific to the individual who is listening. Other studies have proposed that somber music is more likely to release dopamine. This is interesting, especially considering the fact that chills make us feel good, rather than making us cry.

Is That It?

Question: Why do we get chills when we hear good music? Answer: Our brains release dopamine in response to a pleasurable experience. Is this enough? I think not. While we have the scientific mechanism in place, I still want to understand “why?” Our brains have evolved over time to become as effective as possible. So why did the “music chills” trait become so common? How is it evolutionarily advantageous?

                                   feminiya.com

This question is, obviously, much more difficult to answer. We must look retrospectively and imagine why humans with this heightened sense rose above the rest. I would propose that a heightened sensitivity to music can also increase one’s interpersonal skills. In the early years of humanaity, song and dance were a way of communicating with others. Those who had a pleasurable response to music would be more likely to engage in the social activities surrounding the music, making them more likely to pass on their genes.

Still, we can not rule out other possibilities. Maybe the pathways that give us chills are the same ones that give us chills when we are watching scary movies. Perhaps it is the anticipation that comes along with both situations that provides the chilling effect. Hey, maybe it’s all a coincidence anyway, chance does some crazy things.

While searching for articles on bisexuality and transgender identification, I stumbled upon an interesting study on the relationship between Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and sexuality. Our world is only just coming to terms with the idea of sexual variation and most of us haven’t even thought about how mental disorders impact sexuality.

Gender Role

http://libcom.org

This study, conducted in Stockholm, Sweden, gathered information about 103 adults, 50 with ASD and 53 without. Those participants who did not have ASD were used as a control group. Each person answered a series of questions to determine how they fit into gender stereotypes. For example, a question might read, “I am aggressive” those who respond with “I strongly agree” would score higher on the masculinity scale.

The results of this study revealed “both men and women with ASD rated themselves as having a less masculine gender role than the controls.” This means that adults with ASD are less masculine than their same-sex counterparts.

 Issues

This section of the study had a few issues. The data was a little sporadic. Adult females with ADS identified as “less masculine” but they were also twice as likely to be “tomboyish” in youth. These facts seem to contradict each other. Personally, I believe that the sample size was too small to present a strong relationship between ASD affects gender roles. Perhaps a larger sample would clear up some of the cloudy material.

Sexual Debut

http://cdn.tinybuddha.com

The statistically stronger portion of the study dealt with the sexual debut and sexual patterns of participants. Adults with ASD reported lower libido and delayed sexual debut. In fact, 16% of ASD participants had not engaged in sexual intercourse. This was significantly higher than the control group. Moreover, ASD adults had less interest in sex in general.

This portion of the study was much more consistent data-wise. The correlations between ASD and control group sexuality were stronger and clearer. Even so, the small sample and lack of scientific mechanism makes me question the legitimacy of the study.

 What Does it All Mean?

Overall, this study presents some interesting ideas about ASD and sexuality. Unfortunately, it contains little more than correlational information. The data gathered may become useful later as we investigate possible scientific explanations for gender identity and sexuality.

She Said What?

Let’s talk about circumcision. Circumcision is the “surgical removal of the foreskin from the human penis” (wikipedia.org). Just think about that for a second. A little baby boy is born and, days after, we chop off skin from his most sensitive external organ. That sounds a little strange to me…so why do we keep doing it?

The Fears

The origin of circumcision practice dates way back. We’re talking B.C.E. here guys. Initially, the procedure was, and still is, done for religious purposes. However, it has also become a social and cultural issue. When parents choose to circumcise, they may cite these benefits:

1. Wanting their child’s penis to “look like their father’s”

2. Greater ease in cleaning the penis and decreased risk of UTIs

3. Lower risk for HIV and other STDs

Appeal to Scientific Reason

Let’s debunk these ideas one by one, shall we?

1. “Looking like Daddy:” Slicing off your child’s foreskin in order to make it more aesthetically pleasing is akin to a rhinoplasty at birth. Just because little Johnny doesn’t have his father’s nose, doesn’t mean you file it down. Why treat the penis any differently?

2. Cleaning and UTIs: The idea that the foreskin increases risk of UTIs is built on statistical misinformation. Yes, some studies (including one from the American Academy of Pediatrics) have found that uncircumcised baby boys are “10 times” more likely to have a UTI in the first year of life. This sounds scary, but let’s look closer. Uncircumcised babies have a 1% chance of UTI infection. Those who are circumcised have a 0.1% chance. That is a slight decrease from 10 in 1000 to 1 in 1000. The phrase “10 times more likely” is a scare tactic. In fact, parents can help protect their uncircumcised babies by merely pulling back the foreskin and washing underneath it.

Copyright: Intact.com

3. HIV prevention: Doctors have been doing some really impressive research on the HIV front. Multiple well-crafted and thorough studies were conducted in Africa with relatively consistent findings. Yes, circumcision helps reduce the risk for HIV. After adult males were circumcised, the group incidence of HIV decreased 75%. While this is fantastic, I still have some questions. Aren’t condoms–which are 98% effective at preventing all STDs–still a better option? If circumcised men know that they are at a decreased risk, will they participate in more risky sexual behavior? And most importantly, does this study transfer into America? Africa’s high HIV rates might make universal circumcision sound good, but American contraction rates are no where near that high. Should we go to the extreme of cutting off body parts?

In Short

It’s the parents’ choice, but it’s their baby’s penis. Why not wait and let him decide?

Good morning fellow SC 200 scholars! My name is Genevieve (you can call me Gen) and I am very excited to be in this course with you! I am currently under DUS, which is code for I’m not sure what I want to do with my life. I’m very interested in psychology and adolescent development. If I could have any job in the world, I would be a sexologist. Yes, that might seem kind of strange to you, but it’s not as scary as it sounds.

I’m taking SC 200 because science has never quite fit me. Although I enjoy learning about some subjects (such as biology), I always despised lab work. To me, the cold, calculated experiments were always dull. I always found myself staring at the clock, waiting for class to end. If I had to sit through a 3 hour Chem lab, I might die of boredom.

PS: As an added fact about me, I love the Mantis Shrimp. If you haven’t heard of this glorious creature, I encourage you to read this comic.